Martinez et al v. Astrue

Filing 241

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 239 MOTION TO INTERVENE. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ROSA MARTINEZ and JIMMY HOWARD,
on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

v.

7

9

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security, in his
official capacity,
Defendants.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

________________________________/

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

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO
INTERVENE

Plaintiff,

6

8

No. C 08-4735 CW

Sylvia Curtis has submitted multiple documents to the Court,
purportedly as the representative of a putative class member,
Martin Robbins.

Most recently, Ms. Curtis has submitted a motion

to intervene and a motion for contempt, seeking contempt against
various Members of Congress, the Social Security Administration,
unidentified doctors and dentists, and class counsel.
239.

Docket No.

Ms. Curtis asserts that Mr. Robbins has been denied benefits

in violation of the settlement agreement in this case and alleges
perjury, fraud and discrimination.

Having considered Ms. Curtis’s

filing, the Court DENIES the motion to intervene and the motion
for contempt.
LEGAL STANDARD
To intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(a)(2), “an applicant must claim an interest the
protection of which may, as a practical matter, be impaired or
impeded if the lawsuit proceeds without” the applicant.

Forest

1

Conservation Council v. United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489,

2

1493 (9th Cir. 1995).

3

to motions under Rule 24(a).

4

of right must show that: (1) it has a significant protectable

5

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the

6

subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a

7

practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to

8

protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the

9

existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant's

The Ninth Circuit applies a four-part test
An applicant seeking intervention as

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

interest.

Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998)

11

(citing Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050,

12

1061 (9th Cir. 1997)).
On a timely motion, the court may also at its discretion

13
14

permit intervention “when an applicant's claim or defense and the

15

main action have a question of law or fact in common.”

16

Civ. P. 24(b)(2).

17

“consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice

18

the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”

Fed. R.

In exercising its discretion, a court is to

Id.

DISCUSSION

19

Either provision of Rule 24 requires a timely motion to

20
21

intervene.

Judgment in this case was entered on September 9,

22

2009.

23

disfavored.”

24

1997) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

25

finds that Ms. Curtis has not presented any reason that the Court

26

should allow intervention over five years after judgment entered.

27

If “the motion to intervene [is] not timely, [the court] need not

28

reach any of the remaining elements of Rule 24.”

Docket No. 185.

“[P]ostjudgment intervention is generally

Calvert v. Huckins, 109 F.3d 636, 638 (9th Cir.

2

The Court

League of Latin

1

Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997).

2

Moreover, Ms. Curtis is not an attorney.

3

permitted to represent others in federal court.

4

Curtis may not bring claims on behalf of Mr. Robbins.

5

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to intervene and the

6

motion for contempt.

7

advised that she is not permitted to submit any pleadings on Mr.

8

Robbins’ behalf.

9

Docket No. 239.

Pro se litigants are not
Therefore Ms.

Ms. Curtis is further

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated:

October 22, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3