Case 8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E Document 36 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:408

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. SACV 09-1072 DOC (Ex) Date: June 30, 2010
SACV 09-1334 DOC (Ex)
SACV 09-1457 CJC (MLGx)
SACV 10-0516 DOC (Ex)

Title: MEGLODON FINANCIAL, LLC V. RENADA NADINE MARCH, FAY E. MARCH

DOCKET ENTRY
[I hereby certify that this document was served by first class mail or Government messenger service, postage prepaid, to all counsel (or parties) at their
respective most recent address of record in this action on this date.]
Date:____________ Deputy Clerk: ___________________________________

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE

Stephanie Mikhail Not Present

Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND/OR

CONSOLIDATE CASES AND TO CONTINUE HEARING TO
ALLOW JOINT ARGUMENT AND CALL LIVE WITNESSES

Before the Court is Charles Edward Lincoln and Aurora Diaz’s Motion for Leave to
Intervene, and/or to Consolidate Cases and to Continue Hearing until July 19 to Allow Joint Argument
and to Call Live Witnesses Regarding Civil Rights Injunction and Removal.

Lincoln and Diaz seek to intervene in the proceedings pertaining to the Motion for
Remand before this Court in the case of Meglodon Financial, LLC v. Renada Nadine March, Fay E.
March, Case No. SACV 10-0516 DOC (Ex), or to have their cases consolidated. They seek to
intervene because they assert similar claims that the California unlawful detainer procedures are
unconstitutional. This similarity, however, is insufficient for either consolidation or intervention.
Creating a rule in which aligned legal positions would justify intervention or consolidation would create

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC Initials of Deputy Clerk sdm

CIVIL - GEN Page 1 of 2
 Case 8:09-cv-01072-DOC-E Document 36 Filed 06/30/10 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:409

an impossible system for the courts, one not contemplated by the rules for intervention or consolidation.

Movants do not express the rule under which they seek intervention. Intervention as of
right is inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a)(2), because there is no claim
pertaining to “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.” See
also League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson , 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court
declines to allow permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2) in its
discretion because the issues are not sufficiently aligned and the Court’s determination regarding
whether the Court should properly retain jurisdiction of this case would only be delayed or complicated
by intervention. Orange v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 1986). Finally, the Court finds, in its
discretion, that consolidation is not appropriate at this time.

Movants also appear to be seeking intervention in order to challenge the Court’s ruling
that it would only hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendant Fay March’s removal under 28 U.S.C. §
1443 should it be convinced that the legal arguments under which the Court previously remanded this
same case are not fatal. The Court will not reconsider this ruling, which is a sensible two-part process
designed to efficiently preserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC Initials of Deputy Clerk sdm

CIVIL - GEN Page 2 of 2