Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00198/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00198-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

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

DESERT PROTECTION SOCIETY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID BERNHARDT, JOE STOUT, 

THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, AND THE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00198-TLN-CKD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Proposed Defendant-Intervenor, Eagle Crest Energy 

Company, Inc.’s (“ECEC”), Motion to Intervene and accompanying memorandum of points and 

authorities and attached Proposed Answer (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 7-1). Neither Plaintiff Desert 

Protection Society (“Plaintiff”) nor Defendants David Bernhardt, Joe Stout, the United States 

Bureau of Land Management, and the United States Department of the Interior (collectively 

“Federal Defendants”) have taken a position on the Motion (ECF Nos. 12, 13). For the reasons 

set forth below, the Court GRANTS ECEC’s Motion to Intervene.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The instant litigation concerns a challenge to the August 2018 approval of the Eagle Crest 

Energy Gen-Tie and Water Pipeline Right-of-Way Project (“Project”) by Federal Defendants. 

Case 2:19-cv-00198-DJC-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/19/20 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

2

(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff seeks: (1) preliminary injunctive relief restraining Federal 

Defendants from taking any action in connection with the Project that would result in changes to 

the physical environment; (2) declaratory relief that Federal Defendants violated federal statutes; 

and (3) permanent injunctive relief setting aside Federal Defendants’ approvals pending 

compliance with federal statutes. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 9.) 

On May 2, 2019, ECEC filed the instant Motion to Intervene, seeking to intervene as a 

matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or in the alternative, seeking 

permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). (ECF No. 6.) On May 29, 

2019, Federal Defendants filed their response to ECEC’s Motion, taking no position on the 

Motion. (ECF No. 12.) On May 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed its response to ECEC’s Motion also 

taking no position on the Motion. (ECF No. 13). 

II. STANDARD OF LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 24 provides for intervention as a matter of right 

and permissive intervention. When no federal statute confers an unconditional right to intervene, 

Rule 24(a) provides for intervention of right on timely application of anyone who:

claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the 

subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the 

disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede 

the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s 

interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).

The Ninth Circuit applies a four-part test to evaluate a motion to intervene as a matter of 

right under Rule 24: (1) the motion must be timely; (2) the proposed intervenor must have a 

“significant protectable” interest related to the property or transaction which is the subject of the 

action; (3) the action’s disposition may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s 

ability to protect that interest; and (4) the proposed intervenor’s interest may be inadequately 

represented by the parties to the action. Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 

817 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 2:19-cv-00198-DJC-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/19/20 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

III. ANALYSIS

A. Timeliness

In determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, courts consider three factors: “(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.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. 

Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting County of Orange v. Air California, 799 

F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986)). ECEC argues its motion is timely since the parties have not filed 

any dispositive motions, the administrative record has not yet been filed with the Court, and the 

motion was filed within approximately four months of the Complaint. (ECF No. 7 at 6.) 

Additionally, ECEC asserts its participation will not prejudice the other parties, it will abide by 

any scheduling order, and it will avoid duplication of issues with other parties. (Id.) ECEC also 

filed a “Proposed Answer” to the Complaint to avoid any possible delay. (ECF No. 7-1.)

Litigation is still in the very early stages, and neither party opposes the motion. Since 

there is no suggestion that ECEC’s intervention will cause delay or prejudice, the Court finds 

ECEC’s Motion to Intervene is timely. 

B. Significant Protectable Interest

To show a “significantly protectable interest” that justifies intervention of right, the 

prospective intervenor must establish: (1) “the interest is protectable under some law,” and (2) 

“there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue.” Wilderness 

Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). A prospective 

intervener demonstrates a significantly protectable interest when “the injunctive relief sought by 

the plaintiffs will have direct, immediate, and harmful effects upon a third party’s legally

protectable interests.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 818 (9th Cir. 2001). ECEC 

argues its protectable interests include the design, development, and implementation of the 

project, as well as the ability to enter into commercial contracts. (ECF No. 7 at 7.) Furthermore, 

ECEC has a direct interest in the ability to proceed with the Project, which has been fully 

approved by two federal agencies pursuant to applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 

(Id.)

Case 2:19-cv-00198-DJC-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/19/20 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

ECEC has demonstrated that it has a significantly protectable interest in the timely 

progression of the Project, and Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief may adversely affect that 

interest. Accordingly, the Court finds ECEC has established the second factor of the Ninth 

Circuit test.

C. Impairment or Impediment of Interest

Since the Court has found a significantly protectable interest, it now turns to the third 

factor. The proposed intervenor establishes this factor when it shows that the action’s disposition 

may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect the asserted interest. Sw. Ctr. for 

Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 822; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory committee notes. ECEC 

asserts Plaintiff’s action seeks to set aside the approvals necessary to implement the Project, 

which would delay the Project’s schedule and impair ECEC’s ability to engage in commercial 

and energy contracts. (ECF No. 7 at 8.) Such delays and impediments threaten the viability of 

the Project and ECEC’s business. (Id.) The relief requested by Plaintiffs would prevent ECEC 

from timely completing the Project and engaging in commercial contracts. Since the disposition 

of this action may impair or impede ECEC’s ability to protect its interests, the third factor is 

satisfied. 

D. Inadequate Representation 

Finally, the Court considers the fourth factor for intervention of right. In evaluating 

whether a prospective intervenor’s interests are adequately represented by the existing parties, the 

Court considers: “(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make 

all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to 

make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements 

to the proceeding that other parties would neglect.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. 

Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 

1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003)). ECEC asserts neither Plaintiff, as the adverse party, nor Federal 

Defendants will adequately represent its interests. (ECF No. 7 at 8–9.) Specifically, ECEC 

argues that, while Federal Defendants will defend the process followed and the approved 

decisions, their shared interest in defending the approvals are not sufficiently congruent. (Id. at 

Case 2:19-cv-00198-DJC-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/19/20 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

5

9.) ECEC has significant economic and commercial interest in the Project — including an 

investment of nearly $30 million and twelve years of staff time and resources — that Federal 

Defendants cannot be expected to protect. (Id.) Therefore, ECEC anticipates that it may take 

different positions on jurisdiction, merits issues, appropriate remedies, and potential settlement 

discussions than the other parties. (Id.)

The Court finds that ECEC will likely present additional arguments and offer other 

necessary elements to the proceeding which would not be captured by the other parties, thereby 

satisfying the final factor. Therefore, the Court finds ECEC has established the presence of all 

four factors to intervene as a matter of right. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS ECEC’s Motion 

to Intervene.

E. Permissive Intervention 

In light of the Court’s decision granting ECEC’s intervention as a matter of right, the issue 

of permissive intervention is moot. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court hereby GRANTS ECEC’s Motion to Intervene and instructs ECEC to file its 

Answer within 14 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 16, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00198-DJC-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/19/20 Page 5 of 5