Babu v. Ahern

Opinion

ASHOK BABU, and others, Case No. 18-cv-07677-NC Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE; GRANTING v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO GREGORY J. AHERN, and others, Re: Dkt. Nos. 149, 173 Defendants. Before the Court are two motions: (1) a motion to intervene by the plaintiffs in Gonzalez et al. v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Case No. 19-cv-07423-JSC, and (2) a motion for leave to amend the complaint by plaintiff Ashok Babu. The Court finds that intervention is not required and DENIES the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. Because Defendants do not oppose, the Court also GRANTS Babu’s motion for leave to amend. Each motion is discussed in turn below. I. Motion to Intervene Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) permits intervention as a matter of right when the applicant “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties 24(a)(2) must show that: “(1) it has a ‘significant protectable interest’ relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1988)). Rule 24 also permits permissive intervention. Under Rule 24(b)(1), permissive intervention is appropriate when the would-be intervenors “ha[ve] a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Courts consider numerous factors including: the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interest, their standing to raise relevant legal issues, the legal position they seek to advance, and its probable relation to the merits of the case[,] whether changes have occurred in the litigation so that intervention that was once denied should be reexamined, whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties, whether intervention will prolong or unduly delay the litigation, and whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented. Perry, 630 F.3d at 905 (quoting Spangler v. Pasadena Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977)). The Gonzalez plaintiffs seek to intervene under both Rule 24(a)(2) and 24(b)(1). According to the Gonzalez plaintiffs, intervention is necessary to give them a forum in which to present and litigate their concerns relating to Santa Rita Jail’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. See ECF 149 at 17. Neither rule, however, permits their intervention here. First, intervention as a matter of right is not appropriate because the Gonzalez ability to protect its interest. Gonzalez plaintiffs are also members of the class previously certified by the Court. See ECF 64. As members of the class, their interests relating to the Santa Rita Jail’s COVID-19 response are already being protected and litigated in this action. Indeed, in denying the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, Magistrate Judge Corley noted that much of the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ concerns were already being addressed here. See Gonzalez, Case No. 19-cv-07423-JSC, ECF 41 at 9–10, 12. Second, the Gonzalez plaintiffs also fail to show that Babu and his counsel are unable to adequately represent their interests. This, too, dooms the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ attempt to intervene as a matter of right. The Gonzalez plaintiffs first argue that their “ultimate goal” differs from that of Babu because they are concerned with sanitation, rather than mental health. See ECF 149 at 11. But, as Babu’s motion for leave to amend and proposed amended complaint make clear, Babu and his counsel are also concerned with sanitation insofar as it relates to Santa Rita Jail’s COVID-19 response. The Gonzalez plaintiffs also take issue with Babu’s decision to jointly retain an expert, Mike Brady. See ECF 149 at 12. Their disagreement with Babu’s litigation strategy, however, is not sufficient grounds to intervene. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1306 (9th Cir. 1997). Finally, permissive intervention is not appropriate for similar reasons. As explained above, the Gonzalez plaintiffs have not shown that their interests are inadequately represented by Babu and his counsel. The Gonzalez plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate that their intervention would not unduly prolong or delay litigation. The Court first conducted proceedings relating to Santa Rita Jail’s COVID-19 response on March 30, 2020. See ECF 85, 86. Almost six months passed before the Gonzalez plaintiffs brought their motion to intervene. See ECF 149. Permitting intervention now would likely cause undue delay and undermine the parties’ progress over the last six months. 1 Il. Motion for Leave to Amend 2 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court “should freely give leave 3 [to amend] when justice so requires.” Rule 15 is applied liberally and a court may not 4 deny leave to amend unless it finds “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part 5 of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, 6 undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] 7 futility of amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th 8 Cir. 2003) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 9 Here, Babu seeks to amend his complaint to clarify their concerns regarding 10 ) Defendants’ COVID-19 related policies and practices. See ECF 173-1. Babu does not 11 seek to alter their class definition or add additional claims or defendants. Although 12 ) Defendants deny the new factual allegations in Babu’s proposed amended complaint, they = 13 || do not oppose Babu’s request to amend his complaint. See ECF 181 at 2. 14 Reviewing Babu’s proposed amendments, the Court concludes that there has been 15 || no undue delay, bad faith, or improper motive. Likewise, amendment would not be futile 16 because Babu only seeks to amend his factual allegations. Given that Defendants do not 17 || oppose Babu’s motion, Babu’s proposed amendments do not prejudice Defendants. 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Babu’s motion for leave to amend. 19 IM. Conclusion 20 The Court DENIES the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ motion to intervene. The Court 21 GRANTS Babu’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. 23 24 Dated: August 13, 2020 □ 25 United States Magistrate Tudge g 26 27 28