314 F.R.D. 130
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo sued PepsiCo, two PepsiCo scientists, and later sought to add ScentSational Technologies and its principal, alleging misappropriation of his alleged patentable intellectual property.
- ScentSational independently filed suit against PepsiCo in December 2013 for alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets and asserted claims related to patents; that case proceeded into discovery.
- Kamdem-Ouaffo filed multiple complaints and amended complaints in his own action; the district court dismissed his Second Amended Complaint in a separate opinion.
- In July 2015 Kamdem-Ouaffo moved to intervene in the ScentSational v. PepsiCo action and alternatively sought consolidation of the two actions.
- The court denied intervention because the motion was untimely (plaintiff had actual or constructive notice well over a year before moving) and denied consolidation because the two cases were at materially different procedural stages, so consolidation would delay proceedings and risk prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) | Kamdem-Ouaffo sought to intervene to protect alleged interests overlapping with ScentSational’s claims | Defendants opposed intervention as untimely and argued plaintiff lacked a protectable legal interest | Denied: motion untimely (plaintiff had notice 16–19 months earlier); timeliness failure alone precludes intervention |
| Permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) | Plaintiff alternatively sought permissive intervention based on common questions | Defendants argued delay and prejudice; court noted permissive intervention still requires timeliness | Denied for same timeliness reasons as Rule 24(a) |
| Plaintiff’s legal interest in patents/trade secrets | Plaintiff claimed an interest in the intellectual property at issue | Defendants and court found plaintiff had no legally protectable interest in the patents central to ScentSational’s suit | Court observed (as alternative) plaintiff likely lacks a protectable interest, which would defeat intervention |
| Consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) | Plaintiff argued consolidation would serve judicial economy and reduce duplication | Defendants argued consolidation would delay advanced proceedings and cause prejudice; ScentSational case in discovery while plaintiff’s case had been dismissed | Denied: cases at different procedural stages; consolidation would cause delay, confusion, and prejudice rather than judicial economy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pitney Bowes, 25 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1994) (timeliness is a key factor in intervention analysis)
- D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001) (untimely intervention motions may be denied; timeliness evaluated on totality of circumstances)
- Catanzano v. Wing, 103 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 1996) (length of time applicant knew of interest is among most important timeliness factors)
- MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 471 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) (public availability of related filings can establish constructive notice for timeliness purposes)
- Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990) (district courts have broad discretion to consolidate; must weigh judicial economy against delay or prejudice)