Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01993/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01993-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gila River Indian Community, a

federally recognized Indian Tribe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-1993 PHX-DGC

CV10-2017 PHX DKD

CV10-2138 PHX MHB

(Consolidated)

ORDER

This order concerns two motions for intervention by leaders and members of the

Arizona Legislature. Speaker of the House Kirk Adams, Majority Leader John McComish,

Majority Whip Andy Tobin, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Gray (collectively

“Legislative Leaders”) have moved to intervene as of right and permissively under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Doc. 52. Representatives Jerry Weirs, Michelle Reagan, John

Kavanaugh, Rich Crandall, Jim Weiers, Nancy Barto, and Senators John Nelson, Thayer

Verschoor, and Frank Antenori (collectively “Legislators”) join the motion. Id. Senator

Linda Gray (“Senator Gray”) filed a separate motion for intervention. Doc. 54. Defendant

United States and Intervenor Tohono O’Odham Nation (“the Nation”) oppose the

interventions. Docs. 67, 68. The motions have been fully briefed and the parties have not

requested oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant permissive

intervention to the Legislative Leaders and deny intervention to the Legislators and Senator

Gray.

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 77 Filed 11/19/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

I. Introduction.

On July 23, 2010, the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) decided to accept a 54-acre

parcel of land in trust for the benefit of the Nation. Three separate groups of plaintiffs filed

individual actions in federal court opposing the DOI decision, and the cases have been

consolidated in this action. A previous motion to intervene by Senator Russell Pearce was

denied by this Court. Doc. 47. To the extent the Legislators and Senator Gray make

arguments similar to those of Senator Pearce, the Court rejects them for reasons stated in its

previous order. Id. The Court also again denies the request to stay this case until the Arizona

Legislature reconvenes. See id. 

II. Permissive Intervention.

Permissive intervention lies within the sound discretion of the Court. See Kootenai

Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2002). A court may grant

permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) where the proposed intervenor shows

(1) independent grounds for jurisdiction, (2) that the motion is timely, and (3) that the

intervenor’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.

Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2009). The inquiry

under the first element concerns subject matter jurisdiction: “[a] party seeking permissive

intervention . . . must establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction independent of

the court’s jurisdiction over the underlying action.” EEOC v. Nevada Resort Assoc.,

792 F.2d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 1986).

A. Legislative Leaders.

The Legislative Leaders argue that there is an independent basis for jurisdiction over

their claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Doc. 52 at 12. Their claims

assert that the DOI violated the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, the

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Arizona’s Tribal Gaming Compact, and the Tenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Doc. 52. The Legislative Leaders also assert

that they represent “the majority of the legislature,” that they are “assert[ing] and defend[ing]

the State of Arizona’s sovereign rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to regulate

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 77 Filed 11/19/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Indian gaming in our State through Compacts,” and that they are also “assert[ing] and

defend[ing] . . . the collective rights of their constituents, reinforced and articulated through

[Arizona Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming and Self-Preservation Act].” Id. at 5. The

Legislative Leaders also argue that their claims share common questions of law and fact with

the main action, and that the motion is timely and will not cause undue delay. Id. at 11-12.

Defendant United States argues that the Court need not decide whether it “would have

jurisdiction over the present action if it had been brought independently by the proposed

intervenors.” Doc. 68 at 7. Instead, the United States urges the Court to “exercise [its]

discretion and deny the motions” because the “numerosity [of the intervenors] is not evidence

of authorization” to speak for the State or for the legislature as a whole. Doc. 68 at 8. The

United States also asserts that Plaintiffs have sufficient “incentive and resources” to litigate

the suit, and that permitting intervention would cause further delay. Id. at 8. The Nation

opposes intervention on similar grounds, asserting that the intervention is untimely, that it

would cause further delay, and that Plaintiffs already represent the intervenors’ interests.

Doc. 67 at 13.

Contrary to Defendant’s position, Arizona law does not in all cases require explicit

legislative authorization for presiding legislators to represent the legislature in court. The

Arizona Supreme Court has stated that legislators who “bring [an] action without the benefit

of legislative authorization should not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances,

be accorded standing to obtain relief on behalf of the legislature.” Bennett v. Napolitano, 81

P.3d 311, 318 (Ariz. 2003) (emphasis added). This statement implies that exceptional

circumstances may permit legislators to seek relief on behalf of the legislature. See id. This

case is such an exceptional circumstance. Proposed intervenors contend that this case may

affect key state and legislative interests, intervention must occur now if intervenors are to

take part in the resolution of this case, and the Arizona Legislature is not in session to grant

express authorization. The Legislative Leaders are presiding officers in both houses of the

legislature, and a court may reasonably presume that if legislative authorization were granted

it would apply to the presiding officers. See Karcher, 484 U.S. at 80. This is not a matter

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 77 Filed 11/19/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

of “numerosity” as the United States contends, but arises from the positions the Legislative

Leaders hold within their respective chambers.

The Court also disagrees with the timeliness and delay arguments made by the United

States and the Nation. This action was commenced only two months ago, and was filed

shortly before the Fall election, certainly a busy time for Arizona legislators. Doc. 1. The

motion to intervene was filed approximately six weeks later. The Court has placed this case

on an expedited litigation schedule and has adjusted the schedule to accommodate the

addition of intervenors. Doc. 62. Permitting intervention will not disrupt this schedule. The

Court will require intervenors to adhere to the existing schedule and, like other parties, to

avoid duplicate arguments.

The parties do not dispute that the intervenors’ claims and the main action have

questions of law and fact in common. Instead, the United States and the Nation argue that

existing Plaintiffs can adequately represent intervenors’ claims. The Legislative Leaders

respond by noting that the existing Plaintiffs – the City of Glendale, the Gila River Indian

Community, and several individuals – have not argued that DOI’s actions violate state law

or existing gaming compacts as the Legislative Leaders intend to claim. Without passing on

the merits of any such arguments, the Court agrees that the existing parties do not

necessarily represent the interests of Arizona legislators.

Because the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1)(B) have been satisfied, the Court will grant

the Legislative Leaders’ request for permissive intervention.

B. Senator Gray and the Legislators.

Senator Gray and the Legislators make the same claims as the Legislative Leaders.

Because permissive jurisdiction lies within the discretion of the Court and the State’s

interests are represented by the Legislative Leaders, the Court will deny permissive

intervention for Senator Gray and the Legislators. See Perry, 587 F.3d at 951, 955.

III. Intervention as a Matter of Right for Senator Gray and the Legislators.

To qualify for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a), a proposed intervenor

must (1) have a significant protectable interest in the property or transaction that is the

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 77 Filed 11/19/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Because neither Senator Gray nor the Legislators represent the State of Arizona or

the legislature as a whole, the Court rejects their claim to protect State interests for the same

reasons that it rejected the arguments of Senator Pearce. See Doc. 47.

- 5 -

subject of the litigation, (2) be situated so that the disposition of the litigation may impair the

proposed intervenor’s ability to protect that interest, (3) demonstrate that his interests are not

adequately represented by other parties, and (4) move to intervene in a timely manner.

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). “Failure to satisfy any one of the

requirements is fatal to the application, and [a court] need not reach the remaining elements

if one of the elements is not satisfied.” Perry, 587 F.3d at 950.

Senator Gray and several of the Legislators seek to represent the interests of their

constituents in “alleviating and eliminating the adverse effects of gaming in [the Glendale]

urban area.”1

 Doc. 54 at 9. They do not show, however, that they personally will be affected

by the resolution of these claims, as required by Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409

(9th Cir. 1998). Nor have they shown that the City of Glendale will not adequately represent

the interests of Glendale residents. The Court accordingly will deny intervention of right to

Senator Gray and the Legislators.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion to intervene (Doc. 52) is granted with respect to the Legislative

Leaders and denied with respect to the Legislators.

2. Senator Gray’s motion to intervene (Doc. 54) is denied.

3. The Legislative Leaders shall comply with the existing litigation schedule

(Doc. 62) and coordinate with other Plaintiffs to avoid duplicate briefing.

DATED this 19th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 77 Filed 11/19/10 Page 5 of 5