The Estate of Buckminster Fuller v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC

Filing 51

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 44 Motion to Intervene.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF BUCKMINSTER FULLER, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAXFIELD & OBERTON HOLDINGS, LLC, )
)
Defendant,
)
)
ALTERRA EXCESS AND SURPLUS
)
INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
)
Intervenor.
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-CV-02570-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE

19

On May 18, 2012, Plaintiff Estate of Buckminster Fuller (“Estate”) filed this action against

20

Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC (“Maxfield”), alleging four causes of action. Currently before

21

the Court is a Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 44, filed by Proposed Defendant-Intervenor Alterra

22

Excess and Surplus Insurance Company (“Alterra”). No opposition has been filed. On March 28,

23

2013, Alterra filed a “reply,” noting that its motion to intervene is unopposed. ECF No. 48.

24

The motion is deemed fully briefed, and the Court finds the matter appropriate for

25

determination without oral argument, and thus vacates the June 13, 2013 hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-

26

1(b). The June 26, 2013, case management conference remains as set. Having considered the

27

parties’ submissions and the relevant law, and for the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS

28

Alterra’s motion to intervene as of right.
1
Case No. 5:12-CV-02570-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

1
2

I.

Background
Defendant manufactures and sells desk toys called Buckyballs. Compl. at ¶ 1. In 2011,

3

Plaintiff licensed to Defendant limited rights to use Mr. Fuller’s name and likeness in connection

4

with a limited commemorative edition of Buckyballs. Id. at ¶ 12. On May 18, 2012, Plaintiff

5

brought the present action alleging that Defendant misappropriated Mr. Fuller’s name and likeness

6

through the manufacture, distribution, and sale of Buckyballs and related products. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23.

7

Plaintiff also claims that Defendant’s actions are “likely to cause confusion among the general

8

public about Plaintiff’s endorsement of Defendant’s products.” Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff asserts four

9

causes of action: (1) violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) invasion of privacy

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

under California common law; (3) invasion of privacy under California Civil Code § 3344.1; and

11

(4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

12

Alterra issued a Commercial General Liability policy to Maxfield incepting June 4, 2010

13

(the “Alterra Policy”), which was in effect until July 25, 2011. Decl. of Randall P. Berdan, ECF

14

No. 44-2 at ¶ 2. Alterra has been providing a defense to Maxfield in this action, through Sedgwick

15

LLP, a defense counsel Maxfield chose, subject to a reservation of Alterra’s rights. See id.

16

However, following a United States Consumer Product Safety Commission administrative

17

complaint, Maxfield dissolved its Delaware LLC on December 27, 2012, and created the Maxfield

18

Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”) pursuant to the Delaware Limited Liability Act. See Joint

19

Subsequent Case Management Statement of February 20, 2013 (“Feb. 20, 2013 Statement”), ECF

20

No. 40 at 2, 5; Alterra Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 44-1, Ex. A (“Settlement

21

Agreement”). Consequently, Sedgwick LLP filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Maxfield,

22

which the Court granted at the February 27, 2013 Case Management Conference. See Minute

23

Order and Case Management Order, ECF No. 41.

24

The Estate has represented to the Court that the Estate and the Trust entered into the

25

Settlement Agreement on January 18, 2012, agreeing “to settle all claims against the Trust relating

26

to this action without limiting the amounts the Estate could recover from Alterra.” Feb. 20, 2013

27

Statement at 5. The Settlement Agreement included an “Assignment of Claim,” by which the Trust

28

assigned to the Estate “any and all claims, demands and causes of action of any kind whatsoever
2
Case No. 5:12-CV-02570-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

1

which the undersigned has or may have against [Alterra]” arising out of the Alterra Policy.

2

Settlement Agreement, Ex. A. The Estate also represented to the Court that it believes this case

3

“may be suitable for a default judgment and subsequent prove up hearing.” Id. at 6.

4

Alterra has also been pursuing a coverage action seeking a declaration of non-coverage for

5

this action, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court (“Superior Court”) on August 1, 2012,

6

against both Maxfield and the Estate. See Alterra Excess and Surplus Insurance Company v.

7

Maxfield and Oberton Holdings, LLC, et al., CGC-12-522867. Although the Estate previously

8

executed a “Stipulation Dismissing Defendant Estate of Buckminster Fuller and to be Bound by

9

Judgment” and was dismissed from that action, the Superior Court granted the Estate’s Motion for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Relief from Dismissal on May 8, 2013. See Berdan Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A; Plaintiff’s Second

11

Subsequent Status Report of May 13, 2013, ECF No. 50, at 2. Also on May 8, 2013, the Superior

12

Court denied without prejudice Alterra’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in that action. Id.

13

No trial or other dates have been set in the Superior Court action, although the next case

14

management conference is scheduled for June 19, 2013.

15

II.

16

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requires that a court permit anyone to intervene

17

who “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and

18

is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the

19

movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”

20

In determining whether a party may intervene, the Ninth Circuit has identified four factors:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(1) the applicant’s motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must assert an interest relating
to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be
so situated that without intervention the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter,
impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be
inadequately represented by the other parties.
United States v. Oregon, 839 F.2d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 1988). “Although the party seeking to
intervene bears the burden of showing those four elements are met, ‘the requirements for
intervention are broadly interpreted in favor of intervention.’” Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949,
954 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted).

28
3
Case No. 5:12-CV-02570-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

1

Alternatively, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), “[o]n timely motion, the court

2

may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a

3

common question of law or fact.” “[I]n exercising its discretion, the court is to consider ‘whether

4

the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

5

parties.’” Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1128 n. 10 (9th Cir. 2002),

6

abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)

7

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2)).

8

III.

Discussion
Alterra’s unopposed motion seeks to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Civil Procedure 24(a), or in the alternative, permission to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil

11

Procedure 24(b). As set forth below, the Court finds that Alterra has sufficiently satisfied the four-

12

factor test for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a), and thus the Court need not

13

address whether intervention is proper under Rule 24(b).
Timeliness of Alterra’s Motion to Intervene

14

A.

15

In determining timeliness under Rule 24, a court should consider “(1) the stage of the

16

proceeding; (2) prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and the length of the delay.”

17

Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 483 F.3d 956, 965 (9th Cir. 2007).

18

In this case, Alterra had been defending the action through Maxfield’s independent counsel,

19

Sedgwick LLP until the Court granted Sedgwick LLP’s motion to withdraw on February 27, 2013.

20

The Estate indicated on February 20, 2013 that, despite the settlement between the current parties,

21

the case may be suitable for a default judgment, but no such motion has yet been made. The Court

22

finds that Alterra’s filing of the instant unopposed motion on March 7, 2013 comes at a reasonable

23

stage in the proceedings, does not prejudice any other party, did not involve substantial delay, and

24

is therefore timely for purposes of Rule 24.
Potential Impairment of Alterra’s Interest

25

B.

26

Alterra has also established an asserted interest in this action and further established that

27

failure to intervene may impair or impede its ability to protect that interest. See United States v.

28

Oregon, 839 F.2d at 637. As noted above, the Estate has represented that it will seek a default
4
Case No. 5:12-CV-02570-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

1

judgment against Maxfield, which it will seek to recover directly from Alterra. See Feb. 20, 2013

2

Statement at 5-6. Because of Alterra’s potential exposure to a judgment entered against Maxfield,

3

the Court finds Alterra’s interest is sufficient to support intervention.
Adequacy of Representation of Alterra’s Interest

4

C.

5

Lastly, Alterra’s interest is no longer adequately represented in this litigation. In

6
7
8
9

determining adequacy of representation, courts consider:
(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all the
intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such
arguments; and (3) whether the would-be intervenor would offer any necessary elements to
the proceedings that other parties would neglect.
Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 838 (9th Cir. 1996)). “[T]he burden
of showing inadequacy is ‘minimal,’ and the applicant need only show that representation of its
interests by existing parties ‘may be’ inadequate.” Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268

13
F.3d at 823 (quoting Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (1972)). In light of the
14

cancellation of Maxfield’s Limited Liability Company status, and the withdrawal of Sedgwick LLP

15
as counsel, Alterra is no longer represented at all in this action. Cf. APL Co. Pte. Ltd. v. UK
16
Aerosols Ltd., Inc., C 05-0646 MHP, 2007 WL 2238048 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2007) (citing Kaufman
17
& Broad Comm., Inc. v. Performance Plastering Inc., 136 Cal. App. 4th 212, 217 (2006))
18
(permitting intervention by an insurer acting on behalf of its insured, a suspended corporation,
19
because the suspended corporation could not proceed on its own behalf). The inadequacy of the
20
21
22
23
24

representation of Alterra’s interests is underscored by the Settlement Agreement between the Estate
and the Trust, which was entered into unbeknownst to Alterra, explicitly does not limit Alterra’s
liability, and assigns to the Estate all of the Trust’s claims against Alterra. Given the current
alignment of interests, the Court finds it unlikely that any present party will make Alterra’s
arguments, and finds that Alterra has satisfied its “minimal” burden. See Southwest Ctr. for

25
Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 822-23.
26

Therefore, the Court finds that Alterra’s Motion to Intervene meets the Ninth Circuit’s four-

27
part test for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a). See United States v. Oregon, 839 F.2d at
28
5
Case No. 5:12-CV-02570-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

1

637. Furthermore, the Motion was filed on ECF, accompanied by Alterra’s proposed answer to

2

Plaintiff’s Complaint, and thus complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 24(c).

3

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Alterra’s Motion to Intervene. Upon the entry of this Order, the

4

Clerk shall file Alterra’s Answer filed in support of the Motion to Intervene.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: June 7, 2013

7

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9

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
6
Case No. 5:12-CV-02570-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE