Delano Farms Company et al v. The California Table Grape Commission

Filing 120

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 97 Motion to Intervene, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/23/10. (Coffman, Lisa)

Download PDF
Delano Farms Company et al v. The California Table Grape Commission Doc. 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO U R T FOR THE EASTER N DISTRICT OF C A L I F O R N I A DELANO F A R M S C O M P A N Y , FOU R STAR FRU I T , IN C . , an d GERAWAN FARMIN G , INC . , Plai n t i f f s , 1:07-CV- 1 6 1 0 OWW SMS MEMORAND U M DEC I S I O N AND ORDER RE CALIF O R N I A TABLE GRAPE CO M M I S S I O N ' S M O T I O N TO INTERVEN E IN P L A I N T I F F S ' FIRST CA U S E OF ACTION IN THE SECOND A M E N D E D COMPLAINT (DOC. 97 ) . THE CALI F O R N I A TABLE GRAP E COMMISSI O N , UN I T E D S T A T E S OF AMERICA, UNITE D STAT E S DEPARTME N T OF AGRICU L T U R E , TOM VILS A C K , S E C R E T A R Y OF THE UNIT E D STA T E S DE P A R T M E N T OF AGRIC U L G U R E (IN H I S OFFICIAL CAPAC I T Y ) , Def e n d a n t s . I. INTRODUCTION Plaintif f s Sec o n d Am e n d e d Complaint ("SAC") inclu d e s a cause of actio n unde r the Administrative Procedur e Act ("APA") challe n g i n g exclu s i v e licenses for three paten t e n e d grape va r i e t i e s gran t e d b y the United States Depa r t m e n t of Agricult u r e (" U S D A " ) to t h e California Table Grap e Com m i s s i o n ("Commis s i o n " ) under the Bayh-Dole Ac t , 35 U.S.C. § 20 9 . Although the C o m m i s s i o n i s named as a defendant in oth e r causes o f acti o n , it is n o t named as a defendant in th e APA claim. "[T]o the ex t e n t it is necessary to permi t the Commissi o n to defend the challenged licenses," th e Com m i s s i o n 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 seeks to inter v e n e i n the APA claim. Doc. 98. Plaintif f s opp o s e the Commission's intervention i n the APA clai m . Do c . 107 . Th e Commission replied. II. DISCUSSION The Comm i s s i o n moves to i n t e r v e n e as of right or, in t h e alternat i v e , t o perm i s s i v e l y intervene. A. Interven t i o n a s of R i g h t . 1. Legal St a n d a r d . Doc. 110. Interven t i o n i s gove r n e d by Federal Rule of Civil Procedur e 24. To in t e r v e n e as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) , an a p p l i c a n t mu s t claim an interest, th e pro t e c t i o n of which may, as a p r a c t i c a l matter, be impaired or im p e d e d if the l a w s u i t proce e d s witho u t the applicant. Forest Conserva t i o n C o u n c i l v. U n i t e d States Forest Serv . , 66 F.3 d 1489, 14 9 3 (9t h Cir. 1993 ) . The Ninth Circuit ap p l i e s Rule 24(a) li b e r a l l y , in favor of intervention, and re q u i r e s a district court to "t a k e a l l well-pleaded, n o n - c o n c l u s o r y allegati o n s in the m o t i o n as true absent sham, fr i v o l i t y or other ob j e c t i o n s . " South w e s t Ctr. for Biol o g i c a l Dive r s i t y v. Berg, 268 F . 3 d 81 0 , 82 0 (9th Cir. 2001). A fou r par t test is used to eva l u a t e a mot i o n for intervention of right : (1) the motion must be ti m e l y ; (2) the applicant mu s t claim a "significantly protecta b l e " interes t relating to the property or transact i o n which is the subject of the action; 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. Timeline s s . In asses s i n g t i m e l i n e s s , courts in the Nint h Circuit must con s i d e r : (1) t h e cu r r e n t stage of the proce e d i n g s ; (2) whether the ex i s t i n g part i e s would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason f o r any delay in m o v i n g to intervene. Lea g u e of (3) the applicant mu s t be so situated that the disposit i o n of the a c t i o n may as a practical matter impair o r impede its ability to protect that interest ; and (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represen t e d by the p a r t i e s to the action. Forest C o n s e r v a t i o n Counc i l , 66 F.3d at 149 3 . United L a t i n A m . Cit i z e n s v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 13 0 2 (9th Cir. 199 7 ) . 87. H e r e , t h e SA C was filed November 16, 2009 . Doc. The parti e s sti p u l a t e d to continue the deadl i n e f o r all Defendan t s to respon d to the SAC, resulting in a final deadline of Fe b r u a r y 2, 2 0 1 0 . Doc. 92. The Comm i s s i o n moved to inter v e n e o n February 2, 2010. Existing parti e s are not prejudic e d whe n "the moti o n was filed before the distr i c t court ma d e any subst a n t i v e rulings." North w e s t Forest Resource Counc i l v. Glick m a n , 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Ci r . 1996). Here, no sub s t a n t i v e rulings have been made wi t h The motion to intervene is t i m e l y . respect to the SAC. 3. Signific a n t Protecta b l e Interests/ Impairment of Interest s . 3 To demon s t r a t e a "si g n i f i c a n t l y protectable inter e s t , " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "a prosp e c t i v e inter v e n o r must establish that (1) the interest asser t e d is prot e c t a b l e under some law, and ( 2 ) there is a rel a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the legally prote c t e d interest and t h e cla i m s a t issue." Id. In addition, applican t must demon s t r a t e that disposition of th i s ac t i o n may, as a prac t i c a l matte r , impair or impede Appl i c a n t s ' abilitie s to p r o t e c t thei r interests. This requiremen t demands only a showi n g th a t the applicant "would be substant i a l l y affect e d in a practical sense by th e determin a t i o n made i n an action." Biodiver s i t y , 268 F. 3 d at 822. Here, Pl a i n t i f f s see k a d e c l a r a t i o n that the USDA ' s grant of an ex c l u s i v e lic e n s e to the Commission w a s un l a w f u l and inva l i d , a n d req u e s t that the Court set aside the action. SAC ¶¶ 8 1 - 8 2 . As th e lic e n s e e , the Commiss i o n possess e s a Southwest Ctr. for signific a n t , p r o t e c t a b l e interest in the li c e n s e that would be imped e d if Plaint i f f p r e v a i l s on the APA claim . Plaintif f ' s as s e r t i o n in its opposition that it m e r e l y "seeks a judic i a l de t e r m i n a t i o n regarding whether the license granted to the Commi s s i o n for the patents-in-suit complied with the requi r e m e n t s of the Bayh-Dol e Act, Doc. 107 a t 1, is disingen u o u s , as Pla i n t i f f s concede that the Comm i s s i o n "may be impac t e d " b y any decis i o n regarding the validi t y of USDA's action. Id. Plaintiff's reliance on Fishe r Foods, In c . v. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ohio Dep ' t of Liquor Cont r o l , 555 F. Supp. 641 (N.D. O h i o 1982), f o r the propo s i t i o n that the Commission's inter e s t is insuffic i e n t f o r int e r v e n t i o n is without merit. In Fi s h e r , the dist r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d that an industry as s o c i a t i o n represen t i n g s m a l l w i n e a n d b e e r dealers di d not have an interest suffi c i e n t to ch a l l e n g e a statute that a p p l i e d to all busi n e s s e n t e r p r i s e s because the "applicants' inte r e s t is a genera l econ o m i c i n t e r e s t , the same as every se l l e r and distribu t o r . " Id. a t 650 . This is a far c r y from the present case, in whi c h th e APA claim challenges t h e va l i d i t y of a lic e n s e h e l d by the applicant (the Commissio n ) . 4. Existing Parties' Ab i l i t y to Represent Applicants ' Interest s . The rema i n i n g issue is wh e t h e r Applicant's intere s t s a r e adequate l y pro t e c t e d by o t h e r defendants. In ass e s s i n g the adequacy of re p r e s e n t a t i o n , the Ninth Circuit loo k s at three factors: (1) whet h e r the exis t i n g parties will undoubtedly make all of the appl i c a n t ' s arguments; (2) whet h e r the exis t i n g parties are capabl e of and willing to make the applicant's arguments; and (3) whet h e r the appl i c a n t offers a necessary elem e n t to the p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t otherwise would be neglecte d . Id. at 8 2 3 . "[ T ] h e requir e m e n t of inadequacy of represen t a t i o n is sa t i s f i e d if the ap p l i c a n t shows tha t represen t a t i o n of it s int e r e s t s may be inadequate .... [T]he 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 burden o f maki n g thi s sho w i n g is minimal." Sageb r u s h Rebellio n Inc. v. Wa t t , 7 1 3 F . 2 d 525, 528 ( 9 t h Cir. 19 8 3 ) . Here, al t h o u g h the i n t e r e s t s of the Commission an d the USDA ove r l a p , in tha t bot h ha v e an in t e r e s t in preserv i n g the license agreem e n t s a n d co m m e r c i a l i z i n g the patent e d varietie s , the s e int e r e s t s are not identical. Fo r exa m p l e , even if the li c e n s e s were invalidated, the USDA w o u l d still hold pat e n t s t o the varie t a l s , while the Commission wo u l d lose its right s with resp e c t to the varietals. M o r e o v e r , the USDA, as an ag e n c y o f the Executive Branch must b a l a n c e a number o f poli c y con s i d e r a t i o n s in the administra t i o n of its patents, inclu d i n g t h e br o a d policy goals of the Bayh- D o l e Act. Se e Sout h w e s t Ctr., 268 F.3d at 823 (applicants not adequate l y rep r e s e n t e d by government agencies who s e in t e r e s t s are "not simpl y to c o n f i r m " the applicant's inter e s t s , but include a broa d e r "r a n g e of considerations"). Th e Commissi o n ' s i n t e r e s t s ar e not adequately r e p r e s e n t e d by the Federal Defend a n t s . III. CONCLUSION The Comm i s s i o n satis f i e s all of the requirements for interven t i o n a s a ma t t e r of right. It is not nec e s s a r y to address the Co m m i s s i o n ' s alternative request for permi s s i v e interven t i o n . Applican t s ' un o p p o s e d mot i o n to intervene as a ma t t e r of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 right is GRANT E D , co n d i t i o n e d upon strictly limit i n g t h e i r particip a t i o n to iss u e s a b o u t which they can prov i d e u n i q u e informat i o n an d / o r a r g u m e n t s . SO ORDER E D Dated: July 2 3 , 201 0 /s/ Oliver W . Wang e r Oliver W. Wang e r United States Distri c t Judge 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?