Gonzalez et al v. CoreCivic, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER: (1) Granting 32 Motion for Limited Intervention; (2) Denying as moot 33 Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time; (3) Vacating Hearing; and (4) Setting Briefing Schedule. The Owino Plaintiffs shall an Opposition on or before 3/8/2018. The remaining parties shall file a Reply, if any, on or before 3/15/2018. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/6/2018. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

CARLOS GONZALEZ, JUAN JOSE
MERINO-RODAS, MARIBEL
GUTIERREZ-DUARTE, and JENNYE
PAGOADA-LOPEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION
FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION; (2)
DENYING AS MOOT EX PARTE
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; (3)
VACATING HEARING; AND (4)
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs,

15
16

Case No.: 17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

v.
CORECIVIC, INC.,

(ECF No. 32)
Defendant.

Presently before the Court are Sylvester Owino and Jonathan Gomez’s (the “Owino
Plaintiffs”) Motion for Limited Intervention, (ECF No. 32), and ex parte Motion to Shorten
Time, (ECF No. 33). The Owino Plaintiffs are not parties to this case; they are plaintiffs
in a related matter also before this Court, see Owino et al. v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 17-CV1112-JLS-NLS. They seek to intervene in the above-captioned case (the “Gonzalez
action”) for the limited purpose of opposing the Motion to Consolidate, currently pending
before the Court, (see ECF No. 23). The Owino Plaintiffs’ Motion for Limited Intervention
is unopposed. Having considered the proposed intervenors’ arguments and the law, the
Court GRANTS the Motion for Limited Intervention, (ECF No. 32), to the extent detailed

1
17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

1

herein. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the ex parte Motion to Shorten Time, (ECF No.

2

33). On its own motion, the Court VACATES the hearing on the Motion for Limited

3

Intervention, (ECF No. 32), presently set for March 22, 2018.

4

BACKGROUND

5

On May 31, 2017, Sylvester Owino and Jonathon Gomez (the “Owino Plaintiffs”)

6

filed suit against Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. in Owino et al. v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 17-CV-

7

1112-JLS-NLS. On August 11, 2017, Defendant CoreCivic filed a motion to dismiss for

8

failure to state a claim. Then, on December 27, 2017, Plaintiffs Carlos Gonzalez et al. (the

9

“Gonzalez Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against CoreCivic, Inc. in the Gonzalez action, No.

10

17-CV-2573-JLS-NLS. On January 22, 2018, the Gonzalez Plaintiffs filed a Motion to

11

Consolidate Cases and Appoint Interim Lead Class Counsel, (ECF No. 23). In light of the

12

Motion to Consolidate and the potential common issues between these two actions, the

13

Court stayed the Owino et al. v. CoreCivic case and deferred ruling on Defendant’s motion

14

to dismiss. The Owino Plaintiffs now seek to intervene in the Gonzalez action for the sole

15

purpose of opposing the pending Motion to Consolidate.

16

LEGAL STANDARD

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) permits a party to intervene as a matter of

18

right. The Ninth Circuit has adopted “[a] four-part test . . . to determine whether

19

applications for intervention as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) should be

20

granted.” Cnty. of Orange v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986).

21

25

An order granting intervention as of right is appropriate if: (1)
the applicant’s motion is timely; (2) the applicant has asserted an
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject
of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that without
intervention the disposition may, as a practical matter, impair or
impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s
interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties.

26

Id. (quoting United States v. Stringfellow, 783 F.2d 821, 826 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Generally,

27

Rule 24(a)(2) is construed broadly in favor of proposed intervenors and ‘[courts] are guided

28

primarily by practical considerations.’” United States ex rel. McGough v. Covington

22
23
24

2
17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

1

Techs. Co., 967 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Stringfellow, 783 F.2d at 826).

2

“The ‘liberal policy in favor of intervention serves both efficient resolution of issues and

3

broadened access to the courts.’” Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 711 F.3d 570, 577 (9th

4

Cir. 2014) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d

5

391, 397–98 (9th Cir. 2002)).

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) provides that an application for permissive

7

intervention may be granted if the party seeking to intervene “has a claim or defense that

8

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

9

“Generally, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) requires ‘(1) an independent ground

10

for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between

11

the movant’s claim or defense and the main action.’” Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner

12

& Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l

13

Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Permissive intervention is committed to the

14

broad discretion of the district court.” Air Cal., 799 F.2d at 539 (citing United States v.

15

$129,374 in U.S. Currency, 769 F.2d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1985)). “In exercising its

16

discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice

17

the adjudication or the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).

18

Additionally, “[t]he district court’s discretion . . . under Rule 24(b), to grant or deny

19

an application for permissive intervention includes discretion to limit intervention to

20

particular issues.” Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Housing v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728,

21

741 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp., 497 F.2d 180, 181 (9th Cir.

22

1974)).

23

ANALYSIS

24

The Owino Plaintiffs argue that the Court should grant their motion as either an

25

intervention as a matter of right, under Rule 24(a)(2), or permissive intervention, under

26

Rule 24(b). (See ECF No. 32-1, at 3–11.) The Court finds that a permissive intervention

27

under Rule 24(b) is appropriate because the Owino Plaintiffs seek to intervene for the

28

limited purpose of opposing the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate. (See id. at 2.)
3
17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

1

In so doing, the Court does not decide the merits of the Owino Plaintiffs’ intervention as a

2

matter of right. The Court interprets the Owino Plaintiffs’ motion as limited to opposing

3

the motion to consolidate, rather than intervening in the case as a party. This finding, of

4

course, does not bar the Owino Plaintiffs from moving for such relief in the future.

5

The Court finds that the Owino Plaintiffs’ Motion for Limited Intervention meets

6

Rule 24(b)’s requirements. See Blum, 712 F.3d at 1353. The Owino Plaintiffs have an

7

independent ground for jurisdiction as they are properly before the Court in case number

8

17-CV-1112; their filing is timely because the Motion to Consolidate remains pending; and

9

the Motion to Consolidate implicates common questions of law and fact because all

10

Plaintiffs allege violations of law arising out of Defendant’s operation of its Otay Mesa

11

Detention Facility. Most importantly, the Owino Plaintiffs represent in their Motion for

12

Limited Intervention that no party opposes their Motion. (ECF No. 32, at 2.) Accordingly,

13

the Court GRANTS the Owino Plaintiffs’ Motion to Intervene. However, the Court limits

14

the intervention as follows: the Owino Plaintiffs may oppose, and file briefings as

15

necessary to oppose, the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate, (ECF No. 23). See

16

Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Housing, 642 F.3d at 741. The Owino Plaintiffs are not, at this

17

time, parties to the Gonzalez action, No. 17-CV-2573.

18

CONCLUSION

19

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Limited Intervention,

20

(ECF No. 32), to the extent detailed above. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the ex parte

21

Motion to Shorten Time, (ECF No. 33). On its own motion, the Court VACATES the

22

hearing on the Motion for Limited Intervention, presently set for March 22, 2018. The

23

Owino Plaintiffs represent that they are prepared to file an Opposition brief to the Motion

24

to Consolidate on or before March 8, 2018. (ECF No. 32, at 2.)

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4
17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)

1

Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule. The Owino Plaintiffs SHALL

2

FILE an Opposition on or before March 8, 2018. The remaining parties SHALL FILE a

3

Reply, if any, on or before March 15, 2018. If any party or limited intervenor cannot meet

4

the briefing schedule, he or she may move for appropriate relief.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2018

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
17-CV-2573 JLS (NLS)