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).

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:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784)
Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776)
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JONES DAY
717 Texas, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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)