Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08037/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08037-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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 

Town of Colorado City, an Arizona 

municipality, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United Effort Plan Trust, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-8037-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 The Utah Attorney General moves to intervene (Doc. 56) pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a). Plaintiff does not contest the motion.1

 Doc. 67. The 

Court will grant the motion to intervene, but will require the Attorney General to comply 

with the existing litigation schedule. 

I. Legal Standard. 

The Ninth Circuit has established a four-part test for intervention under 

Rule 24(a). This test requires a proposed intervenor to (1) have a significantly 

protectable interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, 

(2) be situated so that the disposition of the action may impair that party’s ability to 

protect that interest, (3) demonstrate that its interests are not adequately represented by 

other parties, and (4) move to intervene in a timely manner. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 

 

1

 Plaintiff does, however, object to the language of proposed order submitted by the Utah Attorney General. Doc. 66-1. 

Case 3:11-cv-08037-DGC Document 70 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). “In determining whether intervention is appropriate, we 

are guided primarily by practical and equitable considerations. We generally interpret the 

requirements broadly in favor of intervention.” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 

(9th Cir. 1998). 

II. Analysis. 

A. Timeliness. 

The motion is timely. The Utah Attorney General asserts that this intervention 

will not delay the proceedings in any way. Doc. 56, 57 at 7. 

B. Significantly protectable interest. 

In order to demonstrate a protectable interest, the intervenor must establish that 

(1) its interest is protected under some law and (2) there is a relationship between that 

legally protected interest and the plaintiffs’ claims. Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 409. A 

proposed intervenor satisfies the second requirement “only if the resolution of the 

plaintiff’s claims actually will affect the applicant.” Donnely, 159 F.3d at 410 (citations 

omitted). 

 These requirements are satisfied. The Utah Attorney General has a duty to ensure 

that the UEP Trust is administered properly in order to protect the interests of its 

beneficiaries and the people of Utah, and a determination as to the constitutionality of the 

Fiduciary’s actions when entering into leases for UEP Trust land may affect litigation 

involving the Attorney General that is pending before the Third District Court of Utah 

and the Tenth Circuit. Doc. 57 at 3, 5. 

C. Impaired ability to protect an interest. 

The Attorney General must show that the disposition of this action “may as a 

practical matter impair or impede [his] ability to protect [his] interest.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Generally, after finding that a proposed intervenor has a 

significant protectable interest, courts have “little difficulty concluding” that the 

disposition of the case may affect it. Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S., 450 F.3d 436, 442 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 

Case 3:11-cv-08037-DGC Document 70 Filed 07/25/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

 Disposition of this action in Plaintiff’s favor could impair the Utah Attorney 

General’s ability to protect the interests of the Trust beneficiaries and the people of Utah. 

In particular, a ruling in favor of Plaintiff on Count One, finding that the reformation of 

the Trust was unconstitutional, would have practical implications for the Utah Attorney 

General in other ongoing litigation. Such a holding would be contrary to his interest in 

protecting the constitutionality of the outcome for which he advocated before Utah’s 

Third District Court. 

 D. Adequate representation by Defendants.

 The Court must consider “whether the interest of a present party is such that it will 

undoubtedly make all intervenor’s arguments,” “whether the present party is capable and 

willing to make such arguments,” and “whether [the Utah Attorney General] would offer 

any necessary elements to the proceedings that other parties would neglect.” State of Cal. 

v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). 

A proposed intervenor need only show that the defendant’s representation of its interest 

“may” be inadequate, a minimal burden. Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 

U.S. 428, 538 n.10 (1972). If, however, the proposed intervenor and a defendant have the 

“same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises” and the 

intervenor must make a substantial showing of inadequacy. Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086. 

 The Attorney General may share the same ultimate objective as the Trust – both 

seek to have the appointment and actions of the Special Fiduciary held constitutional – 

but the presumption of adequacy is overcome by the Trust’s assertion that it cannot 

adequately defend itself due to lack of funding. Doc. 57 at 8-9 (quoting Third District 

Court Case, Memorandum in Support of Special Fiduciary’s Emergency Motion for 

Additional Guidance, March 16, 2012 at 14). Additionally, the Utah Attorney General 

and the Trust do not have identical interests. The Trust represents the interests of its 

beneficiaries, while the Attorney General represents all the people of Utah. Because not 

all Utahns are beneficiaries of the Trust, the Attorney General necessarily represents 

interests beyond those represented by the Trust. 

Case 3:11-cv-08037-DGC Document 70 Filed 07/25/12 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

III. Conclusion.

 Because the Utah Attorney General satisfies all four parts of the Rule 24(a) 

inquiry, the Court will grant his motion to intervene as a matter of right. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Utah Attorney General’s Motion to Intervene (Doc. 56) is granted.

2. Utah Attorney General shall comply with the schedule set forth in the 

Court's Case Management Order (Doc. 52). 

Dated this 25th day of July, 2012. 

Case 3:11-cv-08037-DGC Document 70 Filed 07/25/12 Page 4 of 4