Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02555/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02555-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MDY Industries, LLC, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; and

Vivendi Games, Inc., 

Defendants/Counterclaimants

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; and Vivendi

Games, Inc.,

 Third-Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

Michael Donnelly,

Third-Party Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2555-PHX-DGC

ORDER

This copyright action involves a multiplayer online role-playing game known as

World of Warcraft (“WoW”). WoW players control characters within a virtual universe,

exploring the landscape, fighting monsters, performing quests, building skills, and interacting

with other players and computer-generated characters. As players succeed, they acquire ingame assets, experience, and power. Players can advance from level 1 to level 70.

Jonathan Riches, purportedly doing business under various aliases, has filed a pro se

motion seeking leave to intervene in this action as a plaintiff. Dkt. #98. Mr. Riches asserts

that WoW has “caused his mind to live in a virtual universe” and lose “touch with reality.”

Case 2:06-cv-02555-DGC Document 99 Filed 11/24/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

It is worth noting that this is not Mr. Riches first attempt to intervene in an action

before the Court. See Best Western International, Inc. v. Doe, CV-06-1537-PHX-DGC; see

also Tsirekidze v. Syntax-Brillian Corp., CV-07-2204-PHX-FJM. 

- 2 -

Id. He claims that this caused him to “commit fraud to buy Defendants’ video games” and

to “choose [WoW] over working a legit job.” Id.

Mr. Riches has not shown that he is entitled to intervene as a matter of right pursuant

to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1)-(2).

A court may grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) if the movant provides

an independent basis for jurisdiction, the motion is timely, and the applicant’s claims or

defenses have a question of law or fact in common with the main action. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 24(b)(1)(A); Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1989). Mr. Riches’ motion

satisfies none of these requirements. See Dkt. #98.

Moreover, even if the requirements were satisfied, permissive intervention is a matter

within the sound discretion of the district court. See Venegas, 867 F.2d at 530; Kootenai

Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “In exercising its

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

the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); see Kootenai

Tribe, 313 F.3d at 1111 n.10. The Court concludes that permitting Mr. Riches to intervene

at this late stage of the litigation will unduly delay the proceedings and will prejudice the

parties.1

IT IS ORDERED that Jonathan Riches’ motion for leave to intervene (Dkt. #98) is

denied.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02555-DGC Document 99 Filed 11/24/08 Page 2 of 2