In Re Clorox Consumer Litigation

Filing 143

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE re 139 MOTION to Intervene. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 5/27/15. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

IN RE CLOROX CONSUMER
LITIGATION

) Master File No. 12-00280 SC
)
) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) INTERVENE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

10
11
This Document Relates To:
12
13
14

12-00764
12-00356
12-00649
12-01051

SC
SC
SC
SC

15
16

On April 14, 2015, Amber Lanbert, Kimmy P. Thulfazen, and Rich

17

Janothon (collectively, "Intervenors"), proceeding pro se, filed a

18

motion to intervene in this action.

19

Defendant opposes the motion.

20

file a reply brief by the deadline of May 5, 2015; therefore the

21

motion is fully briefed.

22

hearing date with their motion.

23

Intervenors' motion is appropriate for resolution without oral

24

argument.

25

below.

26

ECF No. 139 ("Mot.").

ECF No. 140.

Intervenors did not

Similarly, Intervenors failed to notice a

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Mot. at 1-2.

Nevertheless,

The motion is DENIED, as explained

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for two types of

27

intervention: intervention of right and permissive intervention.

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b).

Parties seeking intervention of right

1

must (1) bring a timely motion, (2) possess a "significantly

2

protectable interest" relating to the action, (3) be situated such

3

that the disposition of the action "may impair or impede the

4

party's ability to protect that interest," and (4) their interest

5

must not already be adequately represented by the existing parties.

6

Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th

7

Cir. 2009) (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th

8

Cir. 2003)).

9

intervention is discretionary provided the applicant "shows (1)

Unlike intervention of right, granting permissive

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and

11

(3) the applicant's claim or defense, and the main action, have a

12

question of law or a question of fact in common."

13

Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir. 1996).

14

requirements for both types of intervention are "broadly

15

interpreted in favor of intervention," a proposed intervenor

16

nonetheless bears the burden of satisfying Rule 24's requirements.

17

Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed.

18

R. Civ. P. 24(c).

19

N.W. Forest Res.
While the

Here, Intervenors have moved for permissive intervention.

20

Mot. at 1.

21

(1) omits any factual or legal basis for intervention under either

22

Rule 24(a)(2) or (b), (2) fails provide any information about their

23

interest in the action, and (3) does not provide any explanation as

24

to how their interests are not adequately represented by the

25

existing parties to the action.

26

Intervenors provide in support of their motion is their statement

27

"Intervenors have a common vested interest in this litigation,

28

Intervenors were personally affected by Clorox . . . Intervenors

They have not met their burden.

Intervenors' motion:

Indeed, the only information

2

1

are similarly situated individuals . . . Intervenors will provide

2

questions of laws and facts that are common in this litigation."

3

Mot. at 1.

4

either intervention of right or permissive intervention.

5

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Conclusory assertions do not meet the standard for

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Dated:

May

, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3