Ewers v. Heron, 04-2620.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Citation419 F.3d 1
Docket NumberNo. 04-2620.,04-2620.
PartiesLarry EWERS, Plaintiff, Appellee, Howard Eugene Liner; Creditors Committee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Christopher Patrick Heron; Ah Ping Ban; Flamecrest Enterprises Limited Trust; Balz Rudolph Wolfensberger Trust, Movants, Appellants, v. Christopher Patrick HERON; Corporation of the Bankhouse, Inc.; Societe Bankhouse; James F. Pomeroy, II, Defendants.
Decision Date11 August 2005

Page 1

419 F.3d 1
Larry EWERS, Plaintiff, Appellee,
Howard Eugene Liner; Creditors Committee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Christopher Patrick Heron; Ah Ping Ban; Flamecrest Enterprises Limited Trust; Balz Rudolph Wolfensberger Trust, Movants, Appellants,
v.
Christopher Patrick HERON; Corporation of the Bankhouse, Inc.; Societe Bankhouse; James F. Pomeroy, II, Defendants.
No. 04-2620.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard June 6, 2005.
Decided August 11, 2005.

Alan M. Spiro with whom Edwards & Angell, LLP, was on brief, for Appellee.

Isaac H. Peres for Appellants.

Before TORRUELLA, LYNCH, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge.


A series of complicated litigations worldwide has several claimants seeking a sum of over $1.6 billion from Christopher Patrick Heron and his associated entities. Our issue can be stripped to its essence without recounting the details of the drama.

The district court denied a motion to intervene as of right brought by Liner and other claimants in a lawsuit which had been brought in Massachusetts federal court against Heron (and others) by another claimant, Ewers. The reason given for the purported intervention was that if Ewers received the funds he would pocket them and disappear, to the claimants' detriment. All of the claimants purport to have an interest in any money recovered from Heron (as does Ewers). One of the claimants, Liner, admitted he had at one

Page 2

point given Ewers a power of attorney to seek the funds on Liner's behalf, and Ewers argues that under a Compensation Agreement with Liner, Liner agreed to split 50/50 any recovery that Ewers made from Heron on Liner's behalf. But Liner has said he later cancelled these agreements when Ewers proved to be sneaky and untrustworthy. Ewers has equally unattractive things to say about Liner. As for the other claimants, they allege that Ewers entered into an agreement with Alexander Pladott, their representative, to distribute any money recovered from Heron amongst all of the claimants.

The claimants attempted to intervene, some seven months after Ewers had initiated the Massachusetts lawsuit. At that point, the defendant Heron had defaulted, but no final judgment had yet entered.

The district court held a hearing on the motion to intervene, and ascertained the claimants' interest in the case. The court was also told that there were two separate lawsuits pending in Texas, one testing the relative rights between Ewers and Liner under their agreements and the other testing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Mortg., 08-2542.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • October 1, 2009
    ...F.3d 104, 109 (1st Cir.1999). Moreover, a trial court's subsidiary findings as to raw facts are reviewed for clear error. Ewers v. Heron, 419 F.3d 1, 3 (1st The Civil Rules contemplate two types of motions to intervene: intervention as of right, Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), and permissive interventi......
  • B. Fernández & Hnos. v. Kellogg Usa, Inc., 05-2187.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • March 17, 2006
    ...requirements of Rule 24(a)(2). A. Rule 24(a)(2) We review the denial of a Rule 24(a)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See Ewers v. Heron, 419 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.2005). But, because Rule 24(a)(2) provides explicit criteria for adjudicating a motion to intervene, the district court's discre......
  • In re Redondo Construction Corporation, BAP NO. PR 07-051 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 12/18/2007), BAP NO. PR 07-051.
    • United States
    • Bankruptcy Appellate Panels. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, First Circuit
    • December 18, 2007
    ...of review is abuse of discretion which is applied more closely with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)). According to the court in Ewers v. Heron, 419 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. One way to show such an abuse of discretion is to show that the district court ignored the four pertinent legal criteria that one must m......
  • Pladott v. Ewers, CIV.A.05-10356-RWZ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • February 3, 2006
    ...to intervene as plaintiffs. The court denied the motion or intervention, and the First Circuit affirmed the denial. See Ewers v. Heron, 419 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2005). In the meantime, Liner, although not a party to the action, filed with the court an unofficial notice of litigation between hims......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT