Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03567/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03567-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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 VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS,

INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

___________________________________/

This Document Relates To: 

All Actions.

___________________________________/

Master File No. C-13-3567 EMC

CLASS ACTION

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

INTERVENE

(Docket No. 155)

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

Albright, Lisa R. Murphy, Chelsey Penix, Dawn Marie Ball, Amber Lambert, and Timmy T. Curtis

(collectively, “Movants”). Movants claim that they were “personally affected by the Defendants,”

that they have “a common vested interest in this litigation,” and that they “will provide questions of

law[] and facts that are common in this action and will bring new evidence consisting of documents,

exhibits, records, graphs, [and] charts.” 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.

Case 3:13-cv-03567-EMC Document 159 Filed 05/12/15 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

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

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 Ms. Lambert has filed similar frivolous motions in other cases. See, e.g., Oracle Am. Inc. v.

Terix Computer Co., Inc., No. 15-3385 PSG (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 559); In re Intuitive Surgical

Secs. Litig., No. 13-1920 EJD (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 117).

Accordingly, the motion for relief is denied.

This order disposes of Docket No. 155.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03567-EMC Document 159 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2