Google Ireland Limited v. OOO Google

Background

Google Ireland sued OOO Google in this court to stop two claims that OOO Google, acting through its liquidator, had filed against Google Ireland in a Russian bankruptcy court. One claim sought to undo two agreements and recover $1.3 billion in payments; the other sought to extend liability for debts to Google Ireland and other Google entities and employees. Google Ireland also sought to require arbitration.

The court had issued a temporary restraining order, later converted into a preliminary injunction, that barred OOO Google from seeking an anti-suit injunction in Russia. OOO Google nevertheless sought and obtained such an injunction from a Russian court, and it did not appear in this case. NO Fond Pravoslavnogo Televideniya, which the opinion calls Pravoslav, first sought to file an amicus brief. After that request was denied, Pravoslav moved to intervene so it could seek to vacate the injunction. Pravoslav identified itself as one of OOO Google’s judgment creditors with an interest in the value of OOO Google’s bankruptcy estate.

Standing

The court held that Pravoslav had to establish its own Article III standing because it was the only party seeking to defend against Google Ireland’s claims. Article III standing requires an injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that the requested court ruling would remedy the injury.

The court found that Pravoslav’s creditor interest could qualify as an injury because restrictions on OOO Google’s ability to increase its bankruptcy estate could reduce what Pravoslav might recover. But the court found no traceability or redressability. OOO Google had ignored the injunction and continued pursuing its claims in Russia, so vacating the injunction would not change how OOO Google prosecuted those claims or increase the likelihood that Pravoslav’s alleged injury would be remedied. The court stated that this lack of standing alone required denial of the motion.

Intervention as of Right

The court separately held that Pravoslav did not qualify for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The court accepted that the motion was timely and that no existing party adequately represented Pravoslav because OOO Google had not appeared. But it found that Pravoslav lacked a significantly protectable interest related to this action.

The court explained that an interest in collecting a debt from a judgment debtor generally does not, by itself, support intervention. This case concerned where and how OOO Google could pursue claims against Google Ireland, not the amount of assets available to OOO Google’s creditors. The court therefore found that Pravoslav’s interest in the possible collection of its debt was not sufficiently related to this action.

Permissive Intervention

The court also denied permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). That rule permits a court to allow intervention when the proposed intervenor has an independent basis for jurisdiction, files a timely motion, and presents a common question of law or fact with the main action. The court found that Pravoslav had not established jurisdiction or a common question between its claim and this case.

The court further stated that, even if those requirements had been met, it would deny permissive intervention in its discretion. The court viewed OOO Google’s nonappearance as intentional and concluded that allowing Pravoslav to defend the case in OOO Google’s place would reward that default and interfere with a fair resolution of the case.

Disposition

The court DENIES the motion to intervene and the accompanying motions for leave to appear for Pravoslav. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims concerning the Russian bankruptcy proceedings, arbitration, or the preliminary injunction.