Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953-23/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----

PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL, NO. 2:05-cv-0953-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

et al., 

Defendants.

and

CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION,

Applicant for Intervention.

----oo0oo----

In its complaint filed May 13, 2005, Plaintiff Pacific

Rivers Council challenges the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment (“2004 Framework”) on grounds that its approval, by

Defendant United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”),

violates various provisions of the National Environmental Policy

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (“NEPA”) and the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (“APA”). 

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 147 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 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

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

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

2

By Order dated July 21, 2005, the Court allowed the California

Forest Association (“CFA”) and the American Forest & Paper

Association (“AFPA”) to intervene on a permissive basis under

Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On 1

September 14, 2005 and October 19, 2005, permissive intervention

was also granted on behalf of the Quincy Library Group and the

California Ski Industry Association, respectively. 

On March 28, 2007, nearly two years after this action was

commenced and approximately one year after summary judgment

briefing on this case was completed, the California Cattlemen’s

Association (“CCA”) filed the Motion to Intervene presently

before the Court.

CCA alleges that it is entitled to intervene in this lawsuit

as a matter of right under Rule 24(a). Alternatively, it seeks

permission intervention under Rule 24(b). CCA claims that 

Plaintiff’s challenge to the 2004 Framework, if successful, would

impact the ability of its members to use Forest Service lands for

grazing purposes. CCA further contends that its intervention

request is timely because it did not realize until the time of a

March 26, 2007 status conference that counsel for Plaintiff

wished to bifurcate this case from the other related

environmental matters also before this Court and also challenging

the 2004 Framework. CCA further points to the possibility that

independent decisions on these matters might be forthcoming as an

additional reason why it should be permitted to intervene at this

juncture.

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 147 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff opposes CCA’s motion, contending that it cannot

meet the requirements for intervention as a matter of right and

further should not be permitted to intervene permissively.

An applicant has the right to intervene under Rule 24(a) if

1) the intervention request is made in a timely fashion; 2) a

“significantly protectable” interest related to the subject

matter of the litigation is asserted; 3) disposition of the

matter may impair or impede the applicant’s interest in the

absence of intervention; and 4) if the applicant’s interest is

not adequately represented by existing parties. Wetlands Action

Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105,

1113-14 (9th Cir. 2000). Private parties may not, however,

intervene as a matter of right in an action alleging NEPA

violations on grounds that such parties do not have the requisite

significantly protectable interest in NEPA compliance actions. 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir.

2004). Because CCA is a private party, and given the fact that 

the claims sought to be asserted in this action do implicate

NEPA, intervention here as a matter of right appears

inappropriate.

Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), however, “plainly

dispenses with any requirement that the intervenor shall have a

direct personal or pecuniary interest in the subject of the

litigation.” SEC v. U.S. Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434,

459 (1940). Consequently permissive intervention may be allowed

here even in the face of allegations sounding under NEPA.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 147 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 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

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 2

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

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

4

An applicant seeking permissive intervention must satisfy

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 (9th Cir. 1998). The

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 (9th Cir. 1977).

The Court finds that CCA’s intervention request is untimely

and hence denies it on that basis. As indicated above, the

instant Motion was brought nearly two years after this matter was

filed and one year following its submission on summary judgment.

In addition, the factors upon which CCA predicates its Motion

have not come to pass. Plaintiff has not formally moved to

bifurcate this case from the others and no independent decision

from the Court has been forthcoming. Plaintiff’s Motion is

therefore DENIED.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 147 Filed 09/28/07 Page 4 of 4