Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910-47/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OPEN TEXT S.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOX, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04910-JD 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

INTERVENE

Re: Dkt. No. 601

After the trial in this patent infringement case, the Court received a handwritten motion to 

intervene from Amber Lambert, Jimmy K. Thale, Jonathon Rich (or, according to the envelope 

containing the motion, “Jonathan Riches”), and Wayne Albright. See Motion to Intervene, Dkt. 

No. 601. Rich and Albright appear to be incarcerated in Pennsylvania state prison, while Lambert 

is apparently incarcerated in the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility. See Pennsylvania 

Inmate Locator, http://inmatelocator.cor.state.pa.us/inmatelocatorweb/ (search for inmate numbers 

KX9662 and LD2583) (last visited Aug. 18, 2015); Mississippi Department of Corrections, Inmate 

Details, https://www.ms.gov/mdoc/inmate/Search/GetDetails/181498 (last visited Aug. 18, 2015).

Rich, who favors the name Mr. Riches, has filed complaints or moved to intervene in court cases 

more than 2,600 times. See Romano v. Kardashian, No. CV 12-00109-M-DLC, 2012 WL 

2503954, at *1 (D. Mont. June 26, 2012); see also Apple v. Samsung, 11-cv-01846-LHK, Dkt. No. 

3169 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2014) (denying motion to intervene by Mr. Riches); In re LinkedIn User 

Privacy Litigation, 12-cv-3088- EJD, Dkt. No. 115 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2014) (same).

The movants argue that they are entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as permissively under Rule 24(b). They claim that 

they “will provide questions of laws and facts that are common in this action in support of Open 

Text S.A.’s claims,” that they “have a common vested interest in this litigation,” and that they 

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 634 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“will provide documents, exhibits, records and transcripts related to this litigation.”

As a procedural matter, the motion is wholly unsound. In evaluating the motion, the Court 

must accept only well-pleaded, nonconclusory allegations. Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 

Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). No proper allegations can be found in the present motion 

to intervene. In particular, the movants provide no nonconclusory reasons why they have a 

“‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the 

action,” as is necessary to intervene as a matter of right, see id. at 817-18, and no nonconclusory 

reason why their “claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or a question of 

fact in common,” as is necessary for permissive intervention, see Southern California Edison Co. 

v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2002). And turning to common sense, they likelihood that 

these incarcerated individuals have anything meaningful at all to say about this patent dispute is 

almost certainly zero.

Consequently, the Court denies the motion to intervene.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 634 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2