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)

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