Opinion ID: 2812632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether ATTM Claims an Interest

Text: The Plaintiffs contend that ATTM is not a required party because it has not asserted any interest in this action. In Bowen v. United States, 172 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 1999), we observed that “[j]oinder is ‘contingent . . . upon an initial requirement that the absent party claim a legally protected interest relating to the subject matter of the action,” id. at 689 (quoting Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 705 F.2d 1030, 1043 (9th Cir.1983)). As evidence that ATTM has claimed an interest in this action, Apple cites a declaration from ATTM’s counsel from Apple I, filed in WARD V. APPLE, INC. 21 support of Apple’s motion in Apple II.2 The declaration states: “ATTM is aware of this litigation” and “ATTM has an interest in these claims . . . .” The declaration does not indicate whether ATTM’s counsel from Apple I was authorized to state ATTM’s position in Apple II or Apple III. Therefore, it is not perfectly clear whether ATTM has, in fact, asserted an interest in this action. We need not resolve whether the declaration satisfies Bowen’s requirement that ATTM claim an interest. Even if we assume that ATTM’s attorney from Apple I was authorized to assert ATTM’s interests in this litigation, Apple has not shown that the interests ATTM has purportedly claimed are legally protected under Rule 19.