Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-md-02330/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-md-02330-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN RE

CARRIER IQ, INC.,

CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-md-2330 EMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFFS

(Docket No. 357)

Currently pending before the Court is a motion to intervene (as plaintiffs) filed by Amber

Lambert, Jimmy K. Thulestone, and Jonathon Rich (collectively, “Movants”). Movants claim that

they were “personally affected by the Defendants from 2009-2011,” that they have “a financial

common vested interest in this case,” and that they have “financial documents, exhibits, records,

charts, graphs, transcripts, emails and financial data to submit to this Court as newly discovered

evidence.” Mot. at 1-2. Having considered the papers submitted, as well as all other evidence of

record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to intervene.

The Court largely agrees with the arguments raised by Plaintiffs in their opposition brief. In

particular, the Court notes that Movants have provided no specific basis to allow either intervention

of right or permissive intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c) (providing that “[t]he motion must

state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or

defense for which intervention is sought”); Oracle Am. Inc. v. Terix Computer Co., Inc., No. 15-

3385 PSG (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 571) (denying motion to intervene filed by Ms. Lambert, Mr.

Rich, and Timmy J. Tholmes, where the same basic argument in support of intervention was made;

noting that movants failed to “specify for which claim they seek intervention, nor do they allege any

Case 3:12-md-02330-EMC Document 365 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

facts supporting a legitimate connection to the underlying litigation”). In addition, intervention is

inappropriate given that nothing suggests Plaintiffs cannot adequately represent any interest

Movants have or, even if Plaintiffs could not, Movants have other means to protect their interest

(e.g., opting out of the class if certified). See Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc., No. 10-cv-02500-SBA (JCS),

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56699, at *20-21 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) (“If the class is certified and

Putative Interveners are members of the class, then Putative Interveners do have means to protect

their interests. That is, they may object to the settlement during the hearings on motions for

preliminary or final approval, or they may opt out of the class and pursue seem to have filed similar

frivolous motions to intervene in other cases, which were denied.”). Finally, the Court takes note

that all Movants have filed similar frivolous motions in other cases. See, e.g., Keller v. Elec. Arts

Inc., No. C-09-1967 CW (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 1113) (Mr. Rich and Mr. Thule); In Re Cathode

Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-5944 SC (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 2603) (Mr. Rich and

Mr. Thule); In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., No. C-12-3088 EJD (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 107)

(Mr. Rich); In re Google Android Consumer Privacy Litig., No. C-11-2664 JSW (N.D. Cal.) (Docket

No. 91) (Mr. Rich); Oracle Am. Inc. v. Terix Computer Co., Inc., No. 15-3385 PSG (N.D. Cal.)

(Docket No. 559) (Mr. Rich and Ms. Lambert); In re Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litig., No. C-05-

0037 YGR (Docket No. 1034) (Mr. Rich).

Accordingly, the motion for relief is denied.

This order disposes of Docket No. 357.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 _____________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-md-02330-EMC Document 365 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2