Shah v. Johnson and Johnson Company

Filing 1

MEMORANDUM ORDER - directing the Clerk to open a new separate Civil Action. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/4/15. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AUGUST HEBREW EVANS, JR.,
Plaintiff,

v.

: Civ. No. 14-1316-RGA

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
COMPANY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Augustus Hebrew Evans, Jr. filed the instant case in the Superior Court
of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County. Evans raises product liability claims
regarding use of the drug Risperdal and its alleged side effects. Defendant Johnson
and Johnson removed the case to this court. Movant Kushal Kalpan Shah moves to
join this action, stating that he also has a Risperdal claim. (0.1. 14). The Court
construes the motion as a motion for permissive intervention. 1 Defendant opposes on
the grounds that Shah provides no valid basis for intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P.24. (0.1. 15). Shah also requests counsel. (0.1. 16).
Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the following
regarding permissive intervention: On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to
intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

1 Plaintiff moves to join this action but, since he is a third-party, the motion is
governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, not Rule 20, which provides for joinder of parties.

1

·
has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law
(B)
or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Whether to grant permissive intervention lies within the
discretion of the Court. See Brody v. Spang, 957 F .2d 1108, 1123 (3d Cir. 1992). It is
not clear from Shah's sparse allegations that joinder is appropriate. See e,g., Barrett v.

McDonald, 2015 WL 237165, at *2 (D. Del. 2015). Therefore, the Court exercises its
discretion and will deny the motion for intervention.
The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to open a new case, with Docket Items 14
and 16 serving as the Complaint. In addition, the Court will deny the request for
counsel without prejudice to renew upon Plaintiff's compliance with the filing fee
requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this
1.

±

day of August, 2015 that:

Movant Kushal Kalpan Shah's motion for jOinder, construed as a motion

for permissive intervention (D.1. 14) is DENIED.
2.

Movant Kushal Kalpan Shah's request for counsel (D.I. 16) is DENIED

without prejudice to renew.
3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to open a new case with D.1. 14 and 16

serving as the complaint.
4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum

Opinion and Order upon Movant Kushal Kalpan Shah.

2