Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-264/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. C 07-5944 SC

MDL No. 1917 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

INTERVENE 

On May 30, 2014, Christopher Donnelly and six other 

individuals (collectively, "Intervenors"), proceeding pro se, filed 

a motion to intervene in this action. ECF No. 2603 ("Mot."). 

Defendants, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, and Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. ECF Nos. 2619-20, 2623. Intervenors 

did not file a reply brief by the deadline of June 20, 2014; 

therefore the motion is fully briefed. Similarly, Intervenors 

failed to notice a hearing date with their motion. Mot. at 1-2. 

Nevertheless, Intervenors' motion is appropriate for resolution 

without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The motion is DENIED, as 

explained below. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for two types of 

intervention: intervention of right and permissive intervention. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b). Parties seeking intervention of right 

must (1) bring a timely motion, (2) possess a "significantly 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2667 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California 

protectable interest" relating to the action, (3) be situated such 

that the disposition of the action "may impair or impede the 

party's ability to protect that interest," and (4) their interest 

must not already be adequately represented by the existing parties. 

Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). Unlike intervention of right, granting permissive 

intervention is discretionary provided the applicant "shows (1) 

independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and 

(3) the applicant's claim or defense, and the main action, have a 

question of law or a question of fact in common." N.W. Forest Res. 

Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir. 1996). While the 

requirements for both types of intervention are "broadly 

interpreted in favor of intervention," a proposed intervenor 

nonetheless bears the burden of satisfying Rule 24's requirements. 

Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 24(c). 

 Here, Intervenors have not met their burden. Intervenors' 

motion: (1) omits any factual or legal basis for intervention under 

either Rule 24(a)(2) or (b), (2) fails provide any information 

about their interest in the action, and (3) does not provide any 

explanation as to how their interests are not adequately 

represented by the existing parties to the action. Indeed, the 

only information Intervenors provide in support of their motion is 

their statement "Our [i]ntervention provides [q]uestions of laws 

and [f]acts that are common in this [a]ct[ion]." Mot. at 1. This 

conclusory assertion does not meet the standard for either 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2667 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 3
3 

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

For the Northern District of California 

intervention of right or permissive intervention. Accordingly, the 

motion is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: July 1, 2014 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2667 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 3