FTC v. Jacques Poujade ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 7 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 19-56397
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLA
ROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES LLC,
Temporary Receiver,
MEMORANDUM*
Receiver-Appellee,
v.
JASON CARDIFF, individually and as an
owner, officer, director, or member of
Redwood Scientific Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation; et al.,
Defendants,
and
JACQUES POUJADE,
Objector-Appellant.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, No. 20-55066
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLA
v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
JASON CARDIFF, individually and as an
owner, officer, director, or member of
Redwood Scientific Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation; et al.,
Defendants,
v.
TRUE PHARMASTRIP, INC., Proposed
Intervenor,
Movant-Appellant,
and
JACQUES POUJADE,
Objector.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 20, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND,*** District Judge.
1. Appellant Jacques Poujade appeals the district court’s decisions holding
him in civil contempt for failing to transfer money to the receivership and for
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., United States Senior Judge
for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
2
failing to comply with the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) discovery
subpoena. A civil contempt order against a non-party becomes final for purposes
of appeal once the district court finds the non-party to be in contempt and applies
sanctions against him. David v. Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 415–16 (9th Cir.
1977). Here, no sanctions were imposed against Poujade and he purged the
contempt as to the transfer of money to the receivership. We therefore lack
jurisdiction to review the contempt finding.
2. Appellant and Proposed Intervenor True Pharmastrip, Inc. (“TPI”)
appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely its motion to intervene both
as a matter of right and permissively. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to intervene as a
matter of right, except that we review a determination of untimeliness for an abuse
of discretion. Orange Cnty. v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986). A
district court’s denial of permissive intervention is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Id. at 539.
“In determining whether a motion for intervention is timely, we consider
three factors: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to
intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the
delay.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302
(9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). In denying TPI’s motion, the
3
district court found that TPI lacked justification for waiting almost two months to
file its motion. While TPI argues this delay was caused by its meet and confer
attempts with the FTC, the district court determined that this was not compelling as
TPI should have realized early on that any meet and confer efforts would fail.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
determined that TPI’s actions were insufficient to warrant a two-month delay.
Because timeliness is analyzed even more strictly for a motion for permissive
intervention, TPI’s alternative request for permissive intervention is necessarily
untimely. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 131 F.3d at 1308.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
4