Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01993/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01993-1/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

Scott Bundgaard seeks leave to intervene in this consolidated action under Rule 24

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 40. Defendant United States of America and

Intervenor Tohono O’odham Nation (“the Nation”) oppose his request. Docs. 45, 46. The

motion is fully briefed. Docs. 40, 45, 46, 50. No party has requested oral argument.

 The motion makes arguments similar to those made in the motion to intervene by

Arizona Senator Russell Pearce. Doc. 24. The Court rejects the arguments for the reasons

stated in denying Senator Pearce’s motion. Doc. 47. Mr. Bundgaard is a former legislator

(and, apparently, a new senator-elect), but he does not claim the right to speak on behalf of

the State of Arizona. His interests as a taxpayer are insufficient for intervention as of right,

as they were for Senator Pearce, and he has not established an independent basis for subject

matter jurisdiction for purposes of permissive intervention. Id. The grounds upon which the

Court denied Senator Pearce’s request for permissive intervention apply here as well. Id.

Mr. Bundgaard makes an additional argument – that, as a City of Peoria property

owner, he “faces injury because the Contemplated Development would have a negative and

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 56 Filed 11/04/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

far-reaching impact on public safety.” Doc. 40. While deleterious effects on one’s safety

might constitute a protectable interest for purposes of Rule 24(a), an intervenor must

establish “direct, immediate, and harmful effects upon [the intervenor’s] legally protectable

interests.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2001). Mr.

Bundgaard has not shown that the Department of the Interior’s decision regarding 54 acres

in the City of Glendale will have a direct, immediate, and harmful effect on public safety or

his individual safety in the City of Peoria.

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Bundgaard’s motion to intervene (Doc. 40) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01993-DGC Document 56 Filed 11/04/10 Page 2 of 2