Delano Farms Company et al v. The California Table Grape Commission, No. 1:2007cv01610 - Document 120 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 97 Motion to Intervene, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/23/10. (Coffman, Lisa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Delano Farms Company et al v. The California Table Grape Commission 1 Doc. 120 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT 2 FOR THE EASTER N DISTRICT OF C ALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 DELANO F ARMS C OMPANY , FOU R STAR FRU IT, IN C., an d GERAWAN FARMIN G, INC ., 7 10 11 12 13 MEMORAND UM DEC ISION AND ORDER RE CALIF ORNIA TABLE GRAPE CO MMISSION S M OTION TO INTERVEN E IN P LAINTIFFS FIRST CA USE OF ACTION IN THE SECOND A MENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 97 ). Plai ntiff s, 8 9 1:07-CV- 1610 OWW SMS v. THE CALI FORNIA TABLE GRAP E COMMISSI ON, UN ITED S TATES OF AMERICA, UNITE D STAT ES DEPARTME NT OF AGRICU LTURE , TOM VILS ACK, S ECRETA RY OF THE UNIT ED STA TES DE PARTM ENT OF AGRIC ULGURE (IN H IS OFFICIAL CAPAC ITY), 14 Def endan ts. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 18 Plaintif fs Sec ond Am ended Complaint ( SAC ) inclu des a 19 cause of actio n unde r the Administrative Procedur e Act 20 ( APA ) challe nging exclu sive licenses for three paten tened 21 grape va rietie s gran ted b y the United States Depa rtmen t of 22 Agricult ure ( USDA ) to t he California Table Grap e Com mission 23 ( Commis sion ) under the Bayh-Dole Ac t, 35 U.S.C. § 20 9. 24 25 26 27 28 Although the C ommiss ion i s named as a defendant in oth er causes o f acti on, it is n ot named as a defendant in th e APA claim. [T]o the ex tent it is necessary to permi t the Commissi on to defend the challenged licenses, th e Com mission 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 seeks to inter vene i n the APA claim. 2 3 Doc. 98. Plaintif fs opp ose the Commission s intervention i n the APA clai m. Do c. 107 . Th e Commission replied. D oc. 1 10. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 The Comm ission moves to i ntervene as of right or, in t he 6 7 alternat ive, t o perm issiv ely intervene. 8 9 10 11 A. Interven tion a s of R ight. 1. Legal St andard. Interven tion i s gove rned by Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedur e 24. 13 24(a)(2) , an a pplica nt mu st claim an interest, th e pro tection 14 of which may, as a p racti cal matter, be impaired or im peded 15 if the l awsuit proce eds witho ut the applicant. 16 17 18 19 To in terve ne as a matter of right under Rule Forest Conserva tion C ouncil v. U nited States Forest Serv ., 66 F.3 d 1489, 14 93 (9t h Cir. 1993 ). The Ninth Circuit ap plies Rule 24(a) li berall y, in favor of intervention, and re quire s a 20 district court to t ake a ll well-pleaded, n on-conclusory 21 allegati ons in the m otion as true absent sham, fr ivoli ty or 22 other ob jectio ns. 23 v. Berg, 268 F .3d 81 0, 82 0 (9th Cir. 2001). A fou r par t test 24 is used to eva luate a mot ion for intervention of right : 25 26 27 28 South west Ctr. for Biol ogical Dive rsity (1) the motion must be ti mely; (2) the applicant mu st claim a significantly protecta ble interes t relating to the property or transact ion which is the subject of the action; 2 1 (3) the applicant mu st be so situated that the disposit ion of the a ction may as a practical matter impair o r impede its ability to protect that interest ; and 2 3 4 (4) the applicant s interest must be inadequately represen ted by the p arties to the action. 5 6 Forest C onserv ation Counc il, 66 F.3d at 149 3. 7 8 2. Timeline ss. 9 In asses sing t imelin ess, courts in the Nint h Circuit 10 must con sider: (1) t he cu rrent stage of the proce eding s; (2) 11 whether the ex isting part ies would be prejudiced; and (3) the 12 reason f or any delay in m oving to intervene. 13 United L atin A m. Cit izens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 13 02 (9th 14 15 16 17 Cir. 199 7). 87. Lea gue of H ere, t he SA C was filed November 16, 2009 . Doc. The parti es sti pulat ed to continue the deadl ine f or all Defendan ts to respon d to the SAC, resulting in a final 18 deadline of Fe bruary 2, 2 010. 19 to inter vene o n February 2, 2010. 20 prejudic ed whe n the moti on was filed before the distr ict 21 court ma de any subst antiv e rulings. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doc. 92. The Comm issio n moved Existing parti es are not North west Forest Resource Counc il v. Glick man, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Ci r. 1996). Here, no sub stant ive rulings have been made wi th respect to the SAC. 3. The motion to intervene is t imely . Signific ant Protecta ble Interests/ Impairment of Interest s. To demon strate a si gnifi cantly protectable inter est, 3 1 a prosp ective inter venor must establish that (1) the 2 interest asser ted is prot ectable under some law, and ( 2) 3 there is a rel ations hip b etween the legally prote cted 4 5 6 7 interest and t he cla ims a t issue. Id. In addition, applican t must demon strat e that disposition of th is ac tion may, as a prac tical matte r, impair or impede Appl icant s 8 abilitie s to p rotect thei r interests. 9 demands only a showi ng th at the applicant would be 10 substant ially affect ed in a practical sense by th e 11 determin ation made i n an action. 12 13 14 15 This requiremen t Southwest Ctr. for Biodiver sity, 268 F. 3d at 822. Here, Pl aintif fs see k a d eclaration that the USDA s grant of an ex clusiv e lic ense to the Commission w as un lawful 16 and inva lid, a nd req uest that the Court set aside the action. 17 SAC ¶¶ 8 1-82. 18 signific ant, p rotect able interest in the li cense that would 19 be imped ed if Plaint iff p revails on the APA claim . 20 21 22 23 24 As th e lic ensee, the Commiss ion possess es a Plaintif f s as sertio n in its opposition that it m erely seeks a judic ial de termi nation regarding whether the license granted to the Commi ssion for the patents-in-suit complied with the requi rement s of the Bayh-Dol e Act, Doc. 107 a t 1, is 25 disingen uous, as Pla intif fs concede that the Comm issio n may 26 be impac ted b y any decis ion regarding the validi ty of USDA s 27 action. 28 Id. Plaintiff s reliance on Fishe r Foods, In c. v. 4 1 Ohio Dep t of Liquor Cont rol, 555 F. Supp. 641 (N.D. O hio 2 1982), f or the propo sitio n that the Commission s inter est is 3 insuffic ient f or int erven tion is without merit. 4 5 6 7 In Fi sher, the dist rict c ourt d eterm ined that an industry as socia tion represen ting s mall w ine a nd b eer dealers di d not have an interest suffi cient to ch allenge a statute that a pplie d to 8 all busi ness e nterpr ises because the applicants inte rest is 9 a genera l econ omic i ntere st, the same as every se ller and 10 distribu tor. 11 present case, in whi ch th e APA claim challenges t he va lidity 12 Id. a t 650 . This is a far c ry from the of a lic ense h eld by the applicant (the Commissio n). 13 14 15 16 17 4. Existing Parties Ab ility to Represent Applicants Interest s. The rema ining issue is wh ether Applicant s intere sts a re adequate ly pro tected by o ther defendants. In ass essin g the 18 adequacy of re presen tatio n, the Ninth Circuit loo ks at three 19 factors: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (1) whet her the exis ting parties will undoubtedly make all of the appl icant s arguments; (2) whet her the exis ting parties are capabl e of and willing to make the applicant s arguments; and (3) whet her the appl icant offers a necessary elem ent to the p roceedings t hat otherwise would be neglecte d. Id. at 8 23. [ T]he requir emen t of inadequacy of 27 represen tation is sa tisfi ed if the ap plican t shows tha t 28 represen tation of it s int erests may be inadequate .... [T]he 5 1 burden o f maki ng thi s sho wing is minimal. 2 Rebellio n Inc. v. Wa tt, 7 13 F .2d 525, 528 ( 9th Cir. 19 83). 3 Here, al though the i ntere sts of the Commission an d the 4 5 6 7 Sageb rush USDA ove rlap, in tha t bot h ha ve an in terest in preserv ing the license agreem ents a nd co mmercializing the patent ed varietie s, the se int erest s are not identical. Fo r exa mple, 8 even if the li censes were invalidated, the USDA w ould still 9 hold pat ents t o the varie tals , while the Commission wo uld 10 lose its right s with resp ect to the varietals. 11 USDA, as an ag ency o f the Executive Branch must b alanc e a 12 13 14 15 M oreov er, the number o f poli cy con sider ations in the administra tion of its patents, inclu ding t he br oad policy goals of the Bayh- Dole Act. Se e Sout hwest Ctr., 268 F.3d at 823 (applicants not 16 adequate ly rep resent ed by government agencies who se in terests 17 are not simpl y to c onfir m the applicant s inter ests, but 18 include a broa der r ange of considerations ). 19 Commissi on s i nteres ts ar e not adequately r epresented by the 20 Federal Defend ants. Th e 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 23 The Comm ission satis fies all of the requirements for 24 interven tion a s a ma tter of right. 25 address the Co mmissi on s alternative request for permi ssive 26 27 28 It is not nec essar y to interven tion. Applican ts un oppose d mot ion to intervene as a ma tter of 6 1 right is GRANT ED, co nditi oned upon strictly limit ing t heir 2 particip ation to iss ues a bout which they can prov ide u nique 3 informat ion an d/or a rgume nts. 4 5 6 SO ORDER ED Dated: July 2 3, 201 0 /s/ Oliver W . Wang er Oliver W. Wang er United States Distri ct Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
