Hatamian et al v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 250

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying #232 Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2017)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

BABAK HATAMIAN, et al.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7

Case No.: 14-cv-00226 YGR
ORDER DENYING JOHN F. LACKEY’S
MOTION TO INTERVENE

vs.
8
9

Re: Dkt. No. 232
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Lead plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and KBC Asset Management NV

13

(collectively, “plaintiffs”) bring this putative securities fraud class action pursuant to Sections 10(b)

14

and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

15

Currently before the Court is a motion to intervene filed by class member John F. Lackey.

16

(Dkt. No. 232.) Having carefully considered the papers submitted and for the reasons set forth below,

17

the Court DENIES Lackey’s motion to intervene.

18

I.

Factual Background

19

On January 15, 2014, plaintiffs publicized the pendency of this securities class action in

20

accordance to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. (Dkt. No. 17-3.) Lackey received a notice

21

of the pendency of this action on December 28, 2016. (Dkt. No. 237.) Lackey was afforded an

22

opportunity to opt out by January 19, 2017 and he did not. (Dkt. No. 235.) As such, Lackey is

23

currently a class member. Lackey now moves pro se to intervene as a party plaintiff under Federal

24

Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b).1 (Dkt. No. 232.) The Court addresses each below.

25
26
27
28

1

The motion to intervene references only Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.02(b), which does
not exist. Only in his reply to plaintiffs’ opposition does Lackey seek intervention under both Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b). Lackey’s motion to intervene focuses on his desire to receive
court filings in this action. Plaintiffs have offered to provide Lackey with courtesy copies of
pleadings, which are also publicly available. Furthermore, both Lackey’s motion and reply are in
violation of Local Rule 3-4(a) and (c).

1
2

II.

Rule 24(a): Intervention as of Right
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), an applicant seeking intervention as of right

3

must show either an “unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute” or satisfy a four-factor test.

4

The applicant must (1) assert a significant protectable interest relating to the property or transaction

5

that is the subject of the action; (2) be represented inadequately by the parties to the action; (3) be

6

situated such that disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impair or impede one's ability to

7

protect that interest; and (4) file a timely motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Citizens for Balanced Use v.

8

Mont. Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949,

9

954 (9th Cir.2006)). Failure to satisfy any one of the requirements is fatal to the application, and a

10

court need not reach the remaining elements if one of the elements is not satisfied. Perry v.

11

Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2009).

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

Lackey does not argue that a federal statute grants him the right to intervene in this action.

13

Rather, he argues that he meets the four-factor test. With respect to the first factor, plaintiffs do not

14

dispute that Lackey has a significant protectable interest relating to the subject of this class action.

15

However, he fails to satisfy the second and third factor. In that regard, Lackey has not demonstrated

16

that the existing parties inadequately represent his interests. He merely concludes that plaintiffs would

17

not be in the position to offer an adequate defense for him if defendants were to move to de-certify the

18

class or seek his exclusion from the class. The Court finds no support for this argument. The class

19

representatives are sophisticated investors with a substantial stake in the outcome of the litigation and

20

are represented by qualified attorneys. They are more than adequate to represent the class.

21

Furthermore, Lackey’s reliance on Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893

22

(9th Cir. 2011) is inapposite. There, the existing parties did not adequately represent the intervenors’

23

interests—intervenors were seeking the broadest possible restrictions on recreational use of motorized

24

vehicles, while the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) was seeking minimal restrictions

25

in compliance with their statutory mandate. Citizens, 647 F.3d at 899. In fact, the possibility existed

26

that the Forest Service would abandon its defense and withdraw the restrictions altogether if its appeal

27

of a prior district court ruling (which was the result of applicants' prior successful litigation) were to

28

succeed. Id. at n.4. Lackey has made no such showing of inadequate representation of his interests.

2

1

Similarly, Lackey has not demonstrated that the disposition of this matter without his

2

participation could impair or impede his ability to protect this own interests. He only argues that the

3

disposition substantially affects his interests. Nowhere does he explain how he is impaired or

4

impeded. Lackey was afforded the opportunity to opt out of the action and will be afforded the

5

opportunity to object to any potential settlement.
Because Lackey fails to satisfy at least two separate factors, the Court need not address the

6
7
8

remaining Rule 24(a) factor. See Perry, 587 F.3d at 950. The motion is denied as to Rule 24(a).
III.

Rule 24(b): Permissive Intervention
Alternatively, Lackey asks this Court to allow him to intervene permissively pursuant to

9

either a conditional right to intervene pursuant to a federal statute or that an asserted claim or defense

12
Northern District of California

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). Under this rule, an applicant, on timely motion, must show

11

United States District Court

10

shares a “common question of law or fact” with the main action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). In

13

exercising their discretion, courts must “consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or

14

prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); see also In re

15

Benny, 791 F.2d 712, 722 (9th Cir. 1986).

16

Lackey fails to address the legal standard under Rule 24(b). It is his burden to demonstrate

17

how he meets this standard, and he has failed to do so. Instead, Lackey only argues that there is no

18

undue delay or prejudice to the original parties because discovery is ongoing and he is an experienced

19

lawyer. However, Lackey’s experience as a lawyer is not relevant to a finding of prejudice. Given the

20

procedural posture of this case and the impeding deadlines, the Court finds a significant potential for

21

delay. In light of this potential and the lack of any affirmative showing, the Court will not allow

22

Lackey to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b).

23

IV.

Conclusion

24

For the foregoing reasons, Lackey’s motion to intervene is DENIED.

25

This Order terminates Docket Number 232.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: March 22, 2017

28

3

1
2

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

4