United States v. Gojo Industries, Inc.

Background

Dr. Aziz C. Awad moved to intervene in the action as of right or, alternatively, with the court’s permission. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker for general pretrial supervision. Judge Parker issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of the motion. Awad, who was proceeding without a lawyer, timely objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Awad had been a plaintiff in the action when it began on August 8, 2022. He and UrthTech LLC, of which he owned 48%, were represented by lawyers. After Awad’s lawyers sought leave to amend the complaint to remove him as a plaintiff, the court granted leave, and he stopped being a party when the First Amended Complaint was filed on November 15, 2022.

Reasons for the ruling

The court reviewed the recommendation independently and agreed that intervention was not timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or 24(b). The court explained that timeliness depends on circumstances including how long the applicant knew of the relevant interest, prejudice to the existing parties from delay, prejudice to the applicant if intervention is denied, and any unusual circumstances.

The court emphasized that Awad knew he had been joined as a plaintiff and had monitored the case. His objections did not assert that he was unaware of the joinder or that he had not consented to his removal by amendment. The court also relied on his deposition testimony that he knew of a possible GOJO misappropriation claim when the relevant acid-wipe patent was published in March 2019. His later dissatisfaction with UrthTech’s prosecution of the roughly three-year-old action did not make his request timely.

For permissive intervention, the court agreed that intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice under Rule 24(b)(3). Fact discovery had closed and expert discovery was nearing completion. The court stated that Awad’s participation would at least prompt additional motion practice and require reopening discovery concerning his claimed ownership of the trade secrets. The court found the prejudice to Awad from denial minimal because UrthTech represented his interests and he retained any rights he might have against UrthTech for a breach of duty.

Disposition

Judge P. Kevin Castel found the Report and Recommendation well supported in fact and law, overruled Awad’s objections, accepted and adopted the recommendation in its entirety, and denied the motion to intervene as of right or permissively.