4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 502 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 40937
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and EMCORE CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
`
`Civil Action No.12-cv-11758
`HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`____________________________________/
`
`ORDER DENYING TIMMY K. POLLOCK’S, AMBER LAMBERT’S,
`FREDERICK BANKS’S, KEITH RUSSELL JUDD’S, TONI O’DELL’S,
`CHELSEY PENIX’S, LISA M. TULLIS’S AND JOHN ROBERT DEMOS’S
`MOTION TO INTERVENE [#497]
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The jury trial in this matter is nearly ripe for the commencement of jury
`
`deliberations. Presently before the Court are various individuals’ Motion to Intervene,
`
`filed on April 20, 2015. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the present
`
`motion.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and EMCORE CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
`
`Civil Action No.12-cv-11758
`HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`____________________________________/
`
`ORDER DENYING TIMMY K. POLLOCK’S, AMBER LAMBERT’S,
`FREDERICK BANKS’S, KEITH RUSSELL JUDD’S, TONI O’DELL’S,
`CHELSEY PENIX’S, LISA M. TULLIS’S AND JOHN ROBERT DEMOS’S
`MOTION TO INTERVENE [#497]
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The jury trial in this matter is nearly ripe for the commencement of jury
`
`deliberations. Presently before the Court are various individuals’ Motion to Intervene,
`
`filed on April 20, 2015. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the present
`
`motion.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 502 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 40938
`
`II.
`
`Law & Analysis
`
`The movants argue they have a right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2). Rule
`
`24(a)(2) states:
`
`On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . .
`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 adequately represent that interest.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The movants must satisfy the following four elements
`
`“before intervention as of right will be granted: (1) timeliness of the application to
`
`intervene, (2) the applicant’s substantial legal interest in the case, (3) the impairment
`
`of the applicant’s ability to protect that interest in the absence of intervention, and (4)
`
`inadequate representation of that interest by parties already before the court.”
`
`Michigan State v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (6th Cir. 1997).
`
`Timeliness is a threshold issue for both intervention as of right and permissive
`
`intervention. See Blount-Hill v. Zelman, 636 F.3d 278, 279 (6th Cir. 2011); see also,
`
`United States v. Ritchie Special Credit Invs., Ltd., 620 F.3d 824, 832 (8th Cir. 2010).
`
`This circuit considers five factors when determining the timeliness of an application
`
`for intervention of right: (1) the point to which the suit has progressed; (2) the purpose
`
`for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding the application
`
`during which the proposed intervenor knew or should have known of their interest in
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 502 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 40939
`
`the case; (4) the prejudice to the original parties due to the proposed intervenor’s
`
`failure to promptly intervene after they knew or reasonably should have know of their
`
`interest in the case; and (5) the existence of unusual circumstances militating against
`
`or in favor of intervention. Blount-Hill, 636 F.3d at 284.
`
`The present motion to intervene is untimely. The more than two-week jury trial
`
`in this matter is nearly ready for submission to the jury. Intervention at this time is
`
`woefully late. However, and more importantly, even if the court were to conclude that
`
`the instant motion to intervene is timely, the court would not permit intervention as
`
`of right because the movants fail to demonstrate any arguable legal interest in this
`
`case. Rather, the movants present a myriad of reasons for intervention that have no
`
`rational connection “relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of this
`
`action . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).
`
`This court’s conclusion that the instant motion to intervene is untimely
`
`precludes intervention under Rule 24(b), which allows the court to permit a party to
`
`intervene, on timely motion, “who [] is given a conditional right to intervene by a
`
`federal statute; or has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
`
`question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(A)-(B) (emphasis added). Likewise,
`
`the movants fail to demonstrate they are entitled to permissive intervention. They do
`
`not identify any federal statute that would allow intervention, nor do they have any
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 502 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 40940
`
`claims or defenses that share with the main action a common question of law or fact.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(A)-(B). Therefore, the court denies the instant motion to
`
`intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) or by permission under Rule 24(b)(1)(A)-
`
`(B).
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, Timmy Pollock’s, Amber Lambert’s Frederick Banks’s, Keith
`
`Russell Judd’s, Toni O’Dell’s, Chelsey Penix’s, Lisa M. Tullis’s and John Robert
`
`Demos’s Motion to Intervene [#497] is DENIED.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 21, 2015
`
`/s/ Gershwin A. Drain
`GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys
`of record on
`April 21, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary
`mail.
`
`/s/Tanya Bankston
`Deputy Clerk
`
`-4-
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
