Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01537-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

Best Western International, Inc., a nonprofit Arizona corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James Furber, an Internet website

administrator; James and Nidrah Dial,

Internet website bloggers and Members

of Best Western International, Inc.;

Loren Unruh, an Internet website blogger

and Member of Best Western

International, Inc., and Gayle Unruh,

Defendants.

H. James Dial, an individual,

Counterclaimant,

vs.

Best Western International, Inc., a

non-profit Arizona corporation; and

Roman Jaworowicz,

Counterdefendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1537-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Best Western International commenced this action more than two years ago

in June 2006. Dkt. #100. Jonathan Riches has filed a pro se motion for leave to intervene

as a defendant and file a counterclaim against Plaintiff. Dkt. #400. Mr. Riches’ motion

appears to be based on his unpleasant stays at Best Western hotels. He asserts that his hotel

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 410 Filed 08/04/08 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

- 2 -

rooms were filthy, that he received wake-up calls in the early morning hours, and that various

personal items, including his gold bullion and Greek mythology books, were stolen from his

rooms. 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. #400.

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

Plaintiff and the other parties.

IT IS ORDERED that Jonathan Riches’ motion for leave to intervene as a defendant

and file a counterclaim (Dkt. #400) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01537-DGC Document 410 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2