CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.

Filing 325

AMENDED ORDER. Motion to Intervene by "Bernard Madoff d/b/a Jonathan Lee Riches" as Plaintiff and for leave to file a Brief of Amicus Curiae is DENIED.Signed by Judge James Ware on June 19, 2009. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2009) Modified on 7/10/2009 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
For the Northern District of California

NO. C 05-03649 JW AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE

United States District Court

11 12

Google Inc., et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / Presently before the Court is a Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, and Motion for Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae. (hereafter, "Motion," Docket Item No. 322.) The Motion is brought by "Bernard Madoff d/b/a Jonathan Lee Riches" ("Movant"), who seeks to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) and Rule 24(b). (Motion at 1.) The parties filed a timely joint opposition. (See Docket Item No. 323.) Under Rule 24(a)(2), a court must permit anyone to intervene who "claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Under Rule 24(b), a court may permit anyone to intervene who "(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Here, although Movant represents that he has a "common vested interest and . . . documents, emails, exhibits, and photographs related to this case," and that he is a "convicted computer hacker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

with knowledge about Googles [sic] systems and hard drives," he does not state why such knowledge would be relevant to the class' settlement. (Motion at 1.) Further, Movant is not a member of the class certified in this case. (Declaration of Markham Sherwood ¶¶ 1-2, Docket Item No. 323.) Thus, Movant has failed to establish an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of this action. Further, Movant fails to make an adequate showing that he has a conditional right to intervene pursuant to a federal statute, or that he has a claim that shares with a common question of law or fact with this action. Thus, the Court finds Movant has not established sufficient grounds for intervention under Rule 24. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Movant's Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff and for Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: June 19, 2009 JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Adel A. Nadji [e-mail] Daniel Jeffrey Shih [e-mail] Daralyn J. Durie [e-mail] David T. Biderman [e-mail] Farschad Farzan [e-mail] Judith B. Gitterman [e-mail] Lester L Levy [e-mail] M. Christopher Jhang [e-mail] Marc M. Seltzer [e-mail] Michele Fried Raphael [e-mail] Rachel S. Black [e-mail] Ryan Marshall Kent [e-mail] Stephen D. Susman [e-mail] William M. Audet [e-mail] Bernard Madoff d/b/a Jonathan Lee Riches 1306 Ash Bridge Rd. West Chester, PA 19380

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 By: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy Dated: June 19, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk