Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00560/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00560-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE;

CALIFORNIA FORESTRY

ASSOCIATION; and CALIFORNIA

CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION,

NO. CIV. S 05-0560 MCE PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of

the Interior; UNITED STATES

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; and

MATTHEW J. HOGAN, Acting

Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service,

Defendants.

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,

a non-profit corporation, FRIENDS

OF OCEANO DUNES, INC., a California

not-for-profit corporation,

Applicants for Intervention.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:05-cv-00560-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 09/14/05 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

Unless otherwise noted, all further references to “Rule” or 1

“Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

This case, brought by Plaintiffs California State Grange,

California Forestry Association, and California Cattlemen’s

Association (“Plaintiffs”) challenges the alleged failure of

Defendants Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Matthew J. Horgan, Acting

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Director (hereinafter

collectively referred to as “Defendants”) to conduct five-year

status reviews for 196 plant animal species found in California

and listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered

Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The Center for

Biological Diversity (“Center”) and the Friends of Oceano Dunes,

Inc. (“Oceano Dunes”) have now presented separate Motions to

Intervene, either as a matter or right under Rule 24(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or permissively under Rule 1

24(b). Both motions seek leave to intervene in the remedial

phase of the case, and the Center has also expressed an intent to

contest Plaintiffs’ standing in this litigation. Consequently

neither of the proposed intervenors seeks to participate in the

adjudication of the merits of the instant controversy.

While Defendants have not opposed either motion, Plaintiffs

take issue with the Center’s intervention request, claiming that

it cannot meet the requirements for either mandatory or

permissive intervention. Plaintiffs do not, however, oppose

intervention on the part of Oceano Dunes.

An applicant seeking permissive intervention must satisfy

Case 2:05-cv-00560-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 09/14/05 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

three threshold requirements: 1) the motion must be timely; 2)

the court must have an independent basis for jurisdiction over

the applicant’s claims; and 3) the intervenor’s interests must

share a common question of law or fact with the main action. 

Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 412 (9 Cir. 1998). The th

district court has broad discretion to grant permissive

intervention if these factors are met. See Spangler v. Pasadena

City Board of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9 Cir. 1977). th

The threshold requirement for permissive intervention on the

part of both the Center and Oceano Dunes appear to have been

satisified. First, this action was filed on March 23, 2005 and

remains in its preliminary stages. Second, intervenors also have

common interests in the subject matter of this action. To the

extent that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit may result in removal of species

protection under the ESA, for example, the Center asserts that it

has substantial involvement with all 196 of the species at issue,

noting that it has filed lawsuits or petitions to list 83 of

those species, and has filed 33 lawsuits or petitions aimed at

designating critical habitat for 33 of the species concerned. 

With respect to Oceano Dunes, it claims that the ability of its

members to fully utilize the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular

Recreational Area is impacted by continued listing of two

species, the California Least Tern and the California Brown

Pelican under the ESA. Consequently both Plaintiffs and the

proposed intervenors share interest in the continued application

of the ESA to certain listed species. Finally, because neither

intervenor seeks to litigate this matter on its merits, an

independent jurisdictional requirements for intevention is not

Case 2:05-cv-00560-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 09/14/05 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

required. Beckman Indus. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d

470, 473 (9 Cir. 1992). th

Significantly, in opposing the Center’s motion, Plaintiffs

do not challenge either the timeliness of its application or the

requirement that common issues of fact are involved. Plaintiffs

challenge to the propriety of permissive intervention is limited

to the remaining requirement for establishing a right to

permissive intervention; namely, that a basis for independent

jurisdiction be demonstrated. According to Plaintiffs, the

Center cannot establish jurisdiction under the ESA because

citizen suits under the ESA are limited to actions which either

enjoin a person from violating the provisions of the ESA, or

which compel the government to perform certain acts required

under the ESA. Plaintiffs contend that the Center’s proposed

participation in this action cannot satisfy those requirements

because it proposes to defend the government’s actions in

continuing to list the species at issue.

As stated above, however, where, as here, intervention is

not directed to litigating a case on its merits, the requirement

of independent jurisdictional grounds is not required. See id. 

Hence the grounds advanced for opposing the Center’s request for

permissive intervention appears unfounded, and as previously

indicated Oceano Dunes’ motion is unopposed in its entirety. 

Permissive intervention is therefore appropriate in both

instances.

In exercising its discretion to allow permissive

intervention, the Court believes that parties with competing

interests as to the ESA species at issue in this litigation

Case 2:05-cv-00560-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 09/14/05 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

Because the Court has elected to allow permissive 2

intervention as to both the Center and Oceano Dunes, it need not

decide whether intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)

is also indicated.

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 3

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

5

should be heard. The Center’s interests in ensuring full ESA

protection would appear to diverge from those of Plaintiffs, who

seek to remove species restrictions imposed by the ESA. In

addition, Oceano Dunes has a unique, particularized interest

with respect to only two of the 193 species otherwise at issue

in this case. That interest may not be adequately advanced by 

other parties.

In the view of this Court, ensuring that all these

competing interests are heard will contribute to the just and

equitable resolution of this case. Consequently permissive

intervention will be allowed as to both the Center for

Biological Diversity and the Friends of Oceano Dunes, Inc, and 2

the motions presently before the Court are GRANTED.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00560-MCE -PAN Document 26 Filed 09/14/05 Page 5 of 5