Farmers Edge Inc. et al v. Farmobile, LLC et al

Filing 74

ORDER granting 54 Clarke Gerlock's Motion to Intervene. Clarke Gerlock shall have until October 7, 2016, to file a third-party complaint. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
FARMERS EDGE INC.,
FARMERS EDGE (US) INC. and
FARMERS EDGE (US) LLC,

8:16CV191

Plaintiffs,
ORDER
vs.
FARMOBILE, LLC,
JASON G. TATGE,
HEATH GARRETT GERLOCK, and
RANDALL THOMAS NUSS,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Clarke Gerlock’s Motion to Intervene (Filing No.
54). Clark Gerlock seeks leave to intervene and file a Third-Party Complaint as a
matter of right, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or in the
alternative, permissively, pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B). Although the plaintiffs oppose
intervention as a matter of right, the plaintiffs do not oppose permissive intervention by
Clark Gerlock at this time. See Filing No. 63 - Response p. 3. The defendants did not
oppose intervention.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging, among other things, the defendants Jason
Tatge and Heath Garrett Gerlock breached their obligations to their former employer,
Crop Ventures, and unlawfully exploited trade secrets to form their own competing
company, Farmobile. See Filing No. 40 - Amended Complaint. These defendants filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs. See Filing No. 44. Clark Gerlock, although never
employed by Crop Ventures, alleges he and his brother, the defendant Heath Garrett
Gerlock, both claim breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and
fraudulent misrepresentation arising out of services they performed for Crop Ventures, a
company formed to develop and commercialize their inventions. See Filing No. 67 Reply p. 2; Filing No. 55 Ex. 1 - Proposed Third-Party Complaint.
Under these preliminary facts alleged by the parties and the procedural
circumstances of this case, the court finds Clark Gerlock’s proposed claims share
common questions of law or fact with the main action and Clark Gerlock timely moved

to intervene. Further, allowing intervention will not cause undue delay or prejudice.
Finally, because the plaintiffs consent to permissive intervention, at this time the court
need not determine whether Clark Gerlock enjoys intervention as of right. Accordingly,
the court grants Clarke Gerlock’s motion for permissive intervention, pursuant to Rule
24(b)(1)(B), and delivers no opinion with regard to intervention as of right.

Upon

consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Clarke Gerlock’s Motion to Intervene (Filing No. 54) is granted.

2.

Clarke Gerlock shall have to on or before October 7, 2016, to file a third-

party complaint.
Dated this 28th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

2