Tech Data Corporation et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2017-cv-00944

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying (2603) Motion to Intervene in case 3:07-cv-05944-SC (sclc2, COURT STAFF) [Transferred from cand on 4/20/2017.]

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 1997 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)) Case No. C 07-5944 SC 8 ANTITRUST LITIGATION) MDL No. 1917) 9) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO) INTERVENE 10) For the Northern District of California United States District Court) 11)) 12) 13 14 On May 30, 2014, Christopher Donnelly and six other 15 individuals (collectively, "Intervenors"), proceeding pro se, filed 16 a motion to intervene in this action. ECF No. 2603 ("Mot."). 17 Defendants, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, and Indirect Purchaser 18 Plaintiffs oppose the motion. ECF Nos. 2619-20, 2623. Intervenors 19 did not file a reply brief by the deadline of June 20, 2014; 20 therefore the motion is fully briefed. Similarly, Intervenors 21 failed to notice a hearing date with their motion. Mot. at 1-2. 22 Nevertheless, Intervenors' motion is appropriate for resolution 23 without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The motion is DENIED, as 24 explained below. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for two types of 26 intervention: intervention of right and permissive intervention. 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b). Parties seeking intervention of right 28 must (1) bring a timely motion, (2) possess a "significantly PageID 1998 1 protectable interest" relating to the action, (3) be situated such 2 that the disposition of the action "may impair or impede the 3 party's ability to protect that interest," and (4) their interest 4 must not already be adequately represented by the existing parties. 5 Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th 6 Cir. 2009) (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th 7 Cir. 2003)). Unlike intervention of right, granting permissive 8 intervention is discretionary provided the applicant "shows (1) 9 independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and 10 (3) the applicant's claim or defense, and the main action, have a For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 question of law or a question of fact in common." N.W. Forest Res. 12 Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir. 1996). While the 13 requirements for both types of intervention are "broadly 14 interpreted in favor of intervention," a proposed intervenor 15 nonetheless bears the burden of satisfying Rule 24's requirements. 16 Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. 17 R. Civ. P. 24(c). 18 Here, Intervenors have not met their burden. Intervenors' 19 motion: (1) omits any factual or legal basis for intervention under 20 either Rule 24(a)(2) or (b), (2) fails provide any information 21 about their interest in the action, and (3) does not provide any 22 explanation as to how their interests are not adequately 23 represented by the existing parties to the action. Indeed, the 24 only information Intervenors provide in support of their motion is 25 their statement "Our [i]ntervention provides [q]uestions of laws 26 and [f]acts that are common in this [a]ct[ion]." Mot. at 1. This 27 conclusory assertion does not meet the standard for either 28 2 PageID 1999 1 intervention of right or permissive intervention. Accordingly, the 2 motion is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: July 1, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3