Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02324/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02324-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201dj Declaratory Judgment

---

1

19-cv-02324 W (AHG)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS 

COUNCIL & AMERICAN FARM 

BUREAU FEDERATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAREN ROSS, in her official capacity as 

Secretary of the California Department of 

Food & Agriculture, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-02324 W (AHG)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTINTERVENORS’ MOTION TO 

INTERVENE [DOC. 16]

Before this Court is the unopposed motion by The Humane Society of the United 

States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm 

Sanctuary, Compassion in World Farming USA, and Compassion Over Killing 

(collectively “Proposed Defendant-Intervenors”) seeking leave to intervene as 

defendants. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. [Doc. 

16.]

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, a party may seek to intervene as of right 

or with leave of the Court. “A motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) 

is directed to the sound discretion of the district court.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). Such intervention is available when 

Case 3:19-cv-02324-W-AHG Document 17 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-cv-02324 W (AHG)

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

the applicant seeking to intervene demonstrates “(1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; 

(2) [that] the motion is timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense, and the main 

action, have a question of law or a question of fact in common.” Nw. Forest Res.

Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 839 (9th Cir. 1996). In reaching the determination of 

whether the motion is timely, the Court should consider “(1) the stage of the proceeding 

at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the 

reason for and length of the delay.” Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Janet Greeson’s 

A Place For Us, Inc., 62 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The Court finds Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have satisfied the three elements 

necessary to intervene permissively. First, the case before the Court is a federal question, 

and intervenors do not propose to raise any new claims, alleviating jurisdictional 

concerns. See Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 844 (9th 

Cir. 2011). Second, this motion is timely, as it was filed less than two weeks after the 

Plaintiffs initiated this action, and Plaintiffs’ consent indicates that intervenors would not 

cause prejudice to other parties. Finally, Proposed Defendant-Intervenors represent to the 

Court that their “defenses are based solely on legal arguments as to insufficiency of the 

claims raised by the Plaintiff[s].” (Proposed Def.-Interv. P. & A. [Doc. 16-2], 16:3–4.) 

This satisfies the liberally construed Rule 24(b)(1)(B) requirement that proposed 

intervenors share a common issue of law with the main action. See Bureerong v. 

Uvawas, 167 F.R.D. 83, 85–86 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 1996). 

Accordingly, the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ motion is GRANTED. [Doc. 

16.] The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors shall be permitted to intervene in this action 

pursuant to the parties’ agreed-upon conditions: (1) intervenors will abide by the same 

deadlines applicable to the original defendants; (2) intervenors will file jointly; and (3) 

intervenors will not seek discovery from Plaintiffs or its members, nor will Plaintiffs seek 

discovery from the proposed intervenors or their members, with the exception of pre-trial 

disclosure obligations and participation in depositions of witnesses. DefendantIntervenors’ lodged Answer, [Doc. 16-1], is deemed filed as of the date of this order. 

Case 3:19-cv-02324-W-AHG Document 17 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-cv-02324 W (AHG)

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

Defendant-Intervenors are ORDERED to re-file the Answer within forty-eight hours of 

the issue of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02324-W-AHG Document 17 Filed 01/09/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3