Babu v. Ahern
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:18-cv-07677
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Babu v. Ahern, Judge Cousins denied the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ intervention request and granted Ashok Babu leave to amend his complaint.
The Gonzalez plaintiffs were denied permission to join the lawsuit. Ashok Babu was permitted to amend his complaint; the defendants did not oppose that request.
What happened
In Babu v. Ahern, plaintiffs from another case asked to join this lawsuit so they could raise concerns about Santa Rita Jail’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court found that the Gonzalez plaintiffs were already members of the certified class in this case, their interests were being represented, and allowing them to join would likely delay the litigation. Ashok Babu separately asked to amend his complaint to clarify factual allegations about the defendants’ COVID-19 policies and practices. He did not seek to change the class definition or add claims or defendants, and the defendants did not oppose the amendment.
Judge Nathanael Cousins denied the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ motion to intervene and granted Babu’s motion for leave to amend his complaint.
The detailed version
- Babu v. Ahern · No. 5:18-cv-07677
- Nathanael Cousins
- Aug. 13, 2020
Background
The court considered two motions. Plaintiffs in Gonzalez et al. v. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office asked to intervene, meaning to join this lawsuit, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Ashok Babu asked for permission to amend his complaint under Rule 15(a)(2).
Motion to Intervene
The Gonzalez plaintiffs sought intervention under two parts of Rule 24. Rule 24(a)(2) allows intervention as a matter of right when an applicant has a significant protectable interest, the case could impair that interest, the request is timely, and the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interests. Rule 24(b)(1) allows permissive intervention when the proposed intervenors have a claim or defense sharing a common legal or factual question with the main action.
The court denied intervention under both provisions. The Gonzalez plaintiffs said they needed a forum to litigate concerns about Santa Rita Jail’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the court found that they were already members of the class certified in Babu’s case and that their interests concerning the jail’s COVID-19 response were already being protected and litigated here. The court also found that Babu and his counsel could adequately represent those interests, including concerns about sanitation. The Gonzalez plaintiffs’ disagreement with Babu’s decision to jointly retain an expert was not enough to justify intervention.
The court further found that permissive intervention would likely prolong or delay the litigation. Proceedings concerning the jail’s COVID-19 response had begun nearly six months before the Gonzalez plaintiffs filed their motion, and allowing intervention at that point could undermine the progress already made.
Motion for Leave to Amend
Babu sought to amend his complaint to clarify factual allegations about the defendants’ COVID-19-related policies and practices. He did not seek to change the class definition or add claims or defendants. Although the defendants disputed the new factual allegations, they did not oppose the request to amend.
The court found no undue delay, bad faith, improper motive, or prejudice. It also found that amendment would not be futile because Babu sought only to amend factual allegations. The court therefore granted Babu’s motion for leave to amend.
Disposition
Judge Nathanael Cousins denied the Gonzalez plaintiffs’ motion to intervene and granted Babu’s motion for leave to amend his complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.