The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 DANTE DEMARTINI, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08991-JSC
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
9 v. LIMITED JOINDER
10 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 223
Defendant.
11
12
Plaintiffs filed this private antitrust action under Sections 7 and 16 of the Clayton Act seeking
13
to enjoin the merger of Microsoft Corporation and video game developer and publisher Activision
14
Blizzard. On May 19, 2023, following briefing and a lengthy hearing, the Court denied Plaintiffs’
15
motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 189.1) On June 12, 2023, the Federal Trade
16
Commission (FTC) filed an action for provisional relief pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade
17
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) seeking to enjoin Microsoft and Activision from consummating
18
their merger while the FTC’s administrative review of the proposed transaction is pending. See
19
Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft Corporation et al, No. 23-2880 JSC. The Court related the
20
two actions under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). (Dkt. No. 216.) The Court has scheduled an expedited
21
evidentiary hearing on the FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs in this action now
22
seek “limited joinder” for purposes of participating in the evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. No. 223.) After
23
carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes oral argument is
24
unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for permissive joinder.
25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1) allows joinder of plaintiffs in one action if “they
26
27
1 assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the
2 same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”; and “any question of law
3 or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” “Even once these requirements are met, a
4 || district court must examine whether permissive joinder would comport with the principles of
5 || fundamental fairness or would result in prejudice to either side.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,
6 || 232 F.3d 1271, 1296 (9th Cir. 2000). The rules regarding permissive joinder are “to be construed
7 liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to expedite the final determination of disputes.”
8 League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg. Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977).
9 Assuming arguendo the technical requirements for permissive joinder are satisfied, the
10 || Court nonetheless finds joinder is not appropriate here and exercises its discretion to deny joinder
11 under Rule 20. See Harmon v. Brown, 2018 WL 6243246, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2018) (“Even
12 || if the standard for permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) is satisfied, district courts have the
5 13 discretion to refuse joinder in the interests of avoiding prejudice and delay, ensuring judicial
14 || economy, or safeguarding principles of fundamental fairness.”). The preliminary injunction
15 hearing in the FTC action is proceeding on an expedited basis on an extremely compressed
16 || timeframe. Under these circumstances, allowing Plaintiffs in this action to join the evidentiary
3 17 || hearing would not “comport with principles of fundamental fairness.” Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1296.
18 Instead, it would needlessly delay the FTC action and result in judicial inefficiencies. Further,
19 denial of joinder will not prejudice Plaintiffs as they already had the opportunity to present their
20 arguments in favor of a preliminary injunction.
21 Accordingly, the Court in its discretion denies Plaintiffs’ motion for joinder.
22 This Order disposes of Docket No. 223.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated: June 21, 2023
25
26 ne
7 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE
United States District Judge
28