Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1096

Defendants' Opposition to 1099 Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 12/7/2011) Modified on 12/9/2011 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359) Jason McDonell (SBN 115084) Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 739-3939 Facsimile: (650) 739-3900 Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (832) 239-3939 Facsimile: (832) 239-3600 Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 OAKLAND DIVISION 22 23 ORACLE USA, INC., et al., 24 Plaintiffs, 25 v. 26 SAP AG, et al., Defendants. 27 Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Date: December 8, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 3, 3rd Floor Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 28 SVI-100859v1 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) 1 Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc. and TomorrowNow, Inc. ( “Defendants”) file 2 this Opposition to Terry M. Myers’ Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene (“Amended Motion”) 3 and ask the Court to deny the Amended Motion for the same reasons that the Court denied Mr. 4 Myers’ original motion to intervene—namely, that the Amended Motion is “incomprehensible” 5 and fails to state a basis for intervention. ECF No. 1065; see also ECF No. 1064. 6 Mr. Myers filed his original motion to intervene on April 8, 2011, see ECF No. 1064, 7 which the Court denied on April 26, 2011, finding that “[t]he motion is incomprehensible, and no 8 basis for intervention is stated.” ECF No. 1065. On December 5, 2011, Defendants’ counsel 9 received via U.S. Mail Mr. Myers’ “Notice of Filing Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene” 10 (“Notice”) and “Movants [sic] Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene.” See Declaration of Jane 11 L. Froyd (“Froyd Decl.”), Exs. A & B. The Notice states that the Amended Motion was filed 12 with the Court on November 30, 2011, although it has not yet been posted to the ECF electronic 13 docket for this case. See Froyd Decl., Ex. A. Despite the requirement set forth in Civil Local 14 Rule 7-2 that a hearing be no earlier than 35 days after service of a motion, as well as the Court’s 15 stated unavailability for civil hearings until February 8, 2012, Mr. Myers improperly noticed the 16 hearing for the Amended Motion for December 8, 2011. 17 Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] motion to intervene 18 must . . . state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the 19 claim or defense for which invention is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c). However, despite 20 including new allegations, the Amended Motion remains “incomprehensible”—largely repeating 21 the allegations of the original motion to intervene—and again wholly fails to state any grounds 22 for intervention as required by the Federal Rules. Thus, Defendants request that the Court deny 23 the Amended Motion. 24 Dated: December 7, 2011 25 JONES DAY By: /s/ Tharan Gregory Lanier Tharan Gregory Lanier 26 Counsel for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. 27 28 SVI-100859v1 -1- DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

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?