Urs Energy & Construction, Inc., for the Use v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

URS ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE
USE AND BENEFIT OF THE SECURED
CREDITORS OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT
TECHNIQUES, INC., PNC BANK, N.A., FIREMAN'S
FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, R.N. ROBINSON &
SONS, INC.,
Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee

v.

ROBERT KINGHORN, LAW OFFICES OF
FREDERICK HUFF,
Movants-Appellants
______________________

2019-2101
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:12-cv-00057-RHH, Senior Judge Robert H.
Hodges, Jr.
______________________

Decided: May 18, 2020
______________________
Case: 19-2101 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2020

URS ENERGY & CONSTRUCTION v. UNITED STATES
2

ANNA BONDURANT ELEY, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by J
OSEPH H. HUNT, STEVEN JOHN
GILLINGHAM, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.

STEVEN R. SCHOOLEY, Schooley Law Firm, Orlando, FL,
argued for movants-appellants.
______________________

Before P
ROST, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit
Judges.
P
ROST, Chief Judge.
Robert Kinghorn and the Law Offices of Frederick Huff
(“Mr. Kinghorn and Mr. Huff”) appeal the denial of their
motion to intervene post-judgment at the Court of Federal
Claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
A motion to intervene must be timely. R. Ct. Fed. Cl.
24(a), (b). We review a trial court’s timeliness determina-
tion for abuse of discretion. See NAACP v. New York, 413
U.S. 345, 365–66 (1973).
Mr. Kinghorn and Mr. Huff moved to intervene nearly
one month after summary judgment was granted, and over
one year after it was requested. J.A. 4. They sought to
modify the judgment by over $4.5 million on a theory that
had not been presented to the court by the plaintiffs in this
case, a circumstance that these appellants were well aware
of months before the grant of summary judgment. Id. Ap-
plying the relevant factors in its decision, the court denied
the motion as untimely. J.A. 5–6.
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in determining that the post-judgment motion to intervene
was untimely. Because timeliness is dispositive, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 19-2101 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2020