Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03747/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03747-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-3747 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO INTERVENE IN PART AND

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DENYING IT IN PART

Defendant.

_______________________________/

The motion of proposed plaintiff-intervenor Steven Carauddo to intervene in the

above-entitled action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 came on for hearing before

this court on January 30, 2008. Plaintiff California Department of Fair Employment and

Housing (“DFEH”) appeared by its counsel Susan Saylor, defendant Lucent Technologies,

Inc. (“Lucent”) appeared by its counsel Leslie J. Mann, and Steven Carauddo appeared by

his counsel Sharon R. Vinick. 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion to

intervene under Rule 24(a) and GRANTS the motion to intervene under Rule 24(b), as

follows, for the reasons stated at the hearing.

Intervention is permitted as "of right" either when a federal statue authorizes

intervention, or when 

Case 4:07-cv-03747-PJH Document 40 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 3
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

the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is

the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of

the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to

protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented

by existing parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Intervention "of right" under Rule 24(a)(2) involves a four-part test,

each part of which must be satisfied. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson,

131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). 

An applicant for intervention as of right must demonstrate 1) that the application is

timely; 2) that the applicant has a "significantly protectable interest" relating to the property

or transaction involved in the pending lawsuit; 3) that disposition of the lawsuit may

adversely affect the applicant's interest unless intervention is allowed; and 4) that the

existing parties do not adequately protect the applicant's interests. Southwest Ctr. for

Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817-18 (9th Cir. 2001). 

By contrast, permissive intervention under rule 24(b) requires only that the proposed

intervener "have a question of law or fact in common" with the underlying action, that the

request be timely made, and that the court have an independent basis for jurisdiction over

the proposed intervener’s claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). No showing of direct personal

interest is required. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1109 (9th Cir.

2002). 

If an applicant satisfies those threshold requirements, the district court has discretion

to grant or deny permissive intervention. Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9th Cir.

1998). In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether intervention will unduly

delay the main action, or whether it will unfairly prejudice the existing parties. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 24(b)(2); Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 412.

In addition, the court may consider other relevant factors in making its discretionary

decision. These factors include the nature and extent of the intervener’s interest; the

intervener’s standing to raise legal relevant issues; the legal position the intervener seeks

to advance and its probable relation to merits of case; whether changes have occurred in

the litigation so that intervention that was once denied should be reexamined; whether the

Case 4:07-cv-03747-PJH Document 40 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

intervener’s interests are adequately represented by other parties; whether intervention will

prolong or unduly delay litigation; and whether the party seeking intervention will

significantly contribute to the full development of the underlying factual issues in suit and to

a just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented. Spangler v. Pasadena

City Bd. of Ed., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977).

As explained at the hearing, the court finds that California Government Code 

§ 12965(c) does not provide a statutory basis for intervention under Rule 24(a)(1), as it is

not a federal procedural statute, and that Mr. Carauddo has not established that DFEH

does not adequately protect his interests, as required for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2). 

However, the court finds that Mr. Carauddo meets the requirements for intervention under 

Rule 24(b), and finds further that there appears to be minimal delay or prejudice to Lucent,

and that the Spangler factors, on balance, favor granting the motion. 

However, in line with the Supreme Court’s discussion in Stringfellow v. Concerned

Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370 , 375-76 (1987), the court finds that limits should be

placed on Mr. Carauddo’s participation in the litigation. First, Mr. Carauddo may file

motions or oppositions to motions only as to those claims not asserted by DFEH. That is,

there shall be no duplicative motions or oppositions. Second, all discovery must be shared. 

There shall be no discovery propounded by Mr. Carauddo that duplicates discovery

propounded by DFEH. Third, the court will not approve any request for attorney’s fees for

duplicative work performed by Mr. Carauddo’s counsel, or for any work on the claims

brought by DFEH. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03747-PJH Document 40 Filed 02/01/08 Page 3 of 3