Google, Inc. v. Central Mfg. Inc., No. 07 C 385, 2007 WL 789418 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2007) (Kendall, J.).
Judge Kendall denied third party Leo Stoller’s motion to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 — Stoller also filed a motion to interplead and various motions to suspend the proceedings for various reasons. Plaintiff Google brought the instant suit alleging civil RICO violations based upon defendants’ alleged scheme of falsely claiming trademark rights to extort money from legitimate trademark holders. Defendants’ opposed Google’s application for its "Google" mark based upon allegedly fraudulent claims of common law rights in the mark in order to settle the dispute. Stoller subsequently filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, which was converted to Chapter 7. The property of Stoller’s estate included wholly-owned interests in defendants. The Court denied Stoller’s motion to intervene as of right because Stoller had no "direct, significant legally protectable" interest in the case. To the extent Stoller was involved in the underlying actions, it was as an employee of one or more of the defendants and/or acting as defendants’ representative, not in his individual capacity. Similarly, the Court denied Stoller permissive intervention because of the Court’s determination that adding Stoller would unduly delay the case. The Court noted that the parties had entered a settlement contemplating Google’s release of its monetary claims, contingent upon an entry of a permanent injunction and final judgment, a settlement the be "frustrate[d]" by Stoller’s intervention.