N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT U.S. EQUAL EM PLOYM ENT OPPOR TUNITY C OM M ISSION,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. AC TIVISION B L IZZAR D, INC .; B LIZZAR

D ENTERTAINM ENT, INC .; AC TIVISION PUB LISHING, INC .; KING.C OM , INC
. ; DOES, One through Te n, inc lusive ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
v. JESSIC A GONZALEZ, Propose d Inte rve nor, M ova

nt-Appe lla

n t. No. 22-55515

D.C . No. 2:21-c v-07682-DSF-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 13, 2023 

# F IL ED
DEC 27 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

B e fore : B YB EE a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s , a nd VITALIANO, ** Distric t Judge
. Je ssic a

Gonz a le za

p pe a ls the de n ia l of he r m otion to inte rve ne in a suit brought by

the Unite d Stat e s Equa l Em ploy m e nt Opportunity C om

m ission (“ EEOC ” ) a ga i nst Ac tivision B liz z ard, Inc . a nd its subsidia

rie s (“ Ac t ivision” ). W e have jurisdic tion to re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Le agueof Unite d

Latin Am. C

itize ns (“LULAC ”) v . W

ilson , 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th C ir. 1997). W e a ffirm
. B e c a use the distric t c ourt m a de no spe c ific findings a s to tim e line ss or othe rwise , we re vie wthe de c i sion de novo. Id. W e hold tha t Gonz a le z ’ s m otion
wa s untim e ly
. R ule 24 re quire s, a s a

c ondition pre c e de n t, tha

t a ny a pplic ation to interve ne be tim e ly . Fe d. R . C iv. P. 24. W e c onside r thre e fa c tors in our time line s s de te rm i nation: “ (1) the sta g e of the proc e e ding a t whic h a n a p plic ant se e k s to inte rve ne ; (2) the pre

judic e to othe r partie s; a

nd (3) the re a son for a

n d le ngth of the de la y .” Orange

C ounty v . Air C al. , 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th C ir. 1986).

* * The Honora

ble Eric N. Vita lia

no, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion. 2W e first look to the e xte n t “ that the distric t c ourt ha s substa ntive ly

— and substa ntia lly

— e nga ge d the issue s” at the tim e of the propose d inte rve ntion. LULAC , 131 F.3d a

t 1303. Gonz a le z file d he r m otion to inte rve ne on M arc h 4, 2022, five m onths a fte r EEOC file d suit a nd lodge d a propose d C o nse n t De c re e . During this tim

e , the distric t c ourt a

nd the pa rtie s “ ha d c o ve re d a

lot of le ga l ground toge the r.” Id. For e xam ple , on Oc tobe r 12, 2021, Gonz a le z ’ s union file d obje c tions to the

propose d C onse nt De c re e . On Oc tobe r 25, 2021, the C a l ifornia C ivil Rights Division (“ C RD” ) m ove d to inte rve ne . On De c e m b e r 13, 2021, the distric t c o urt he ld a 90-m inute he aring a t whic h it disc usse d the propose d C onse nt De c re e pa ge by

pa ge . On Ja

nua ry 4, 2022, thepa

rtie s lodge d

an am e nde d de c re e . On Ja nua ry 18, 2022, C RD file d a dditional obje c tions to the am e n de d de c re e . And on Fe brua ry 10, 2022, Gonz a l e z he rse lf file d obje c tions to the propose d de c re e . Give n the tim e line of this la wsuit, Gonz a l e z m ove d to inte rve ne late in the proc e e dings, whic h we ighs a ga inst a finding of time l ine s s. W e ne xt c onside r pre

judic e to the e xisting pa

rtie s, whic h is “ the m ost im porta nt c onside ra tion” in our tim e line ss a n a ly sis. Unite d State

s v . Ore gon , 745 F.2d 550, 552 (9th C ir. 1984) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d). W e have he ld tha

t “ i f granting a

be late d m otion to inte

rve n e would thre ate n the de lic ate ba l anc e re a c he d by e x i sting pa rtie s a fte r protra c te d ne g otia tions, this fac tor
3m ay

we igh a ga inst interve n tion.” Smith v . L.A. Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 830 F.3d 843, 857 (9th C i r. 2016). This fa c tor a l so we i ghs a ga inst Gonz a le z ’ s inte rve ntion. While Gonz a le z c la im s he r c onc e rns c an be a ddre sse d with “ [a ] n e a sy fix,” he r purpose in inte rve ning is a c tua lly to forc e a

substa ntive c ha nge in the a gre e m e nt that would e xpose Ac tivision to a dditional le ga l lia

bility
. Suc h a

n im position would “upse t the de lic ate ba la nc e ” the pa

rtie s have thus fa

r re a c he d a fte r se ve ra l rounds of ne gotia

tions, a m e ndm e nts, a

nd propose d de c re e s. Unite d State s v . W ashington , 86 F.3d 1499, 1504 (9th C i r. 1996). La stly , we c onside r the re a son for a nd le ngth of the m ova

nt’ s de la y , whic h

“ is m e a sure d from

the date the propose d inte rve nor should ha ve be e n a ware tha t its inte re s ts would no longe

r be prote c te d a de quate ly

by the pa rtie s. . . .” Id. at 1503.

“ [A] ny substa

ntia l la pse of tim e we ighs he avily a g a i nst inte rve ntion.” LULAC , 131 F.3d a

t 1302 (quoting W

ashington , 86 F.3d a

t 1503). Gonz a le z ’ s sole re a son for de la y wa s be c a

use she wa s re ly ing on both her union a nd C R D to inte rve ne an d
re pre se nt he r inte re sts. It is c le ar from the re c ord a

nd Gonz a le z ’ s c o nc e ssions tha t she wa s a ware of a nd oppose d to this litiga

tion a s e arly

a s Oc tobe r 2021, whe n he r union file d obje c tions to the propose d de c re e . She a lso kne w in De c e m be r 2021 that the distric t c ourt ha d re

je c t e d both the union’ s obje c tions a nd C RD’ s m otion to inte rve ne . Gonz a l e z ’ s stra te g y wa s c e rta inly

he r pre rogat ive
. Howe ve r, she
4“ should ha

ve known tha

t the risks of wa iting inc lude d possiblede nia l of [he r]
m otion[] to inte rve ne a s untim e ly .” C al. De p’t of Tox ic Substanc e

s C ontrol v

. C om. Re ality

Proje c ts, Inc

. , 309 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ While [the propose d inte rve nors] we re not c e rta in tha t the C onse n t De c re e would be a dve rse to the ir inte re sts, the y

ha d re a son to know tha

t ne gotia t ions m ight produc e a
se ttle m e nt de c re e to the ir de trim e nt.” ); se e also United State s v . Ore gon, 913 F.2d 576, 589 (9th C ir. 1990) (finding inte rve n tion untime ly

be c a use a pplic ants kne w of the p roc e e ding a

nd we re aware tha

t the ir inte re sts would be disc u sse d in se ttle m e nt
ne gotia tions). It ha s be e n we ll e sta blishe d tha t inte rve n ors should not “ le t the fate of [an othe r’ s] m o t ion to interve ne gove rn [the ir] de c ision whe the r to a pply for inte rve ntion.” W

ashington , 86 F.3d a

t 1504. The re fore , this fa c tor a lso we ighs
a ga inst Gonz a le z . C onside ring a ll thre e fa c t ors, Gonz a le z ’ s m otion wa s untim e l y . Ac c ordingly , the orde r is AFFIRM E D
.

5