Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08207/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08207-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 30:1276 Interior: Review of Agency Action

---

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

Center for Biological Diversity; Grand

Canyon Trust; Sierra Club; and Kaibab

Band of Paiute Indians, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior;

and U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8207-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Arizona 1 Mine is a uranium mine located near Grand Canyon National Park.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants have violated environmental laws in connection

with Arizona 1 Mine, and request an injunction directing mine operations to cease. Dkt. #17.

Denison Arizona Strip, LLC and Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (collectively,

“Denison”) own unpatented claims at Arizona 1 Mine and conduct operations pursuant to a

plan issued by Defendant BLM. Denison has filed a motion to intervene in this action

pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #19. The motion is fully

briefed. Dkt. ##20, 24, 27, 30. No party has requested oral argument. For reasons that

follow, the Court will grant the motion.

This Circuit has established a four-part test for intervention under Rule 24(a). This

test requires a proposed intervenor (1) to have a significantly protectable interest in

the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, (2) to be situated so that

the disposition of the action may impair that party’s ability to protect that interest, (3) to

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 31 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

demonstrate that its interests are not adequately represented by other parties, and (4) to move

to intervene in a timely manner. Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003).

In determining whether intervention is appropriate, the Court is “guided primarily by

practical and equitable considerations,” not technical distinctions. Donnelly v. Glickman,

159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998); Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810,

818 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court must “interpret the requirements broadly in favor of

intervention.” Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 409; see Berg, 268 F.3d at 818 (“[W]e construe Rule

24(a) liberally in favor of potential intervenors.”); Wash. State Bldg. & Const. Trades

Council v. Spellman, 684 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Rule 24 traditionally has received

a liberal construction in favor of applicants for intervention.”).

In a similar action brought by Plaintiffs, Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar,

No. CV-08-8117-PCT-NVW, Judge Wake permitted certain mining companies to intervene

as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a) (see id., Dkt. #44). Denison urges the Court to

follow Judge Wake’s order and allow intervention in this case. Dkt. #27 at 6.

In both this action and the one before Judge Wake, Plaintiffs assert violations of the

Federal Land Policy Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. See

Dkt. #17, No. CV-09-8207; Dkt. #1, No. CV-08-8117. The arguments made in opposition

to intervention are similar. See Dkt. #24, No. CV-09-8207; Dkt. #37, No. CV-08-8117. The

Court finds Judge Wake’s order granting intervention to be well-reasoned and applicable to

the intervention issues raised in this case. The Court will follow Judge Wake’s order and

grant Denison’s motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a). 

 Plaintiffs assert that, to the extent intervention is permitted, Denison either should be

limited to the remedy phase of the case or should be required to join in Defendants’ briefing

on the merits. Dkt. #24 at 2. The role of Denison will be determined at the Case

Management Conference set for April 9, 2010 (see Dkt. #26).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Denison Arizona Strip, LLC and Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s motion to

intervene as defendants (Dkt. #19) is granted.

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 31 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

2. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged proposed answer (Dkt. #28).

DATED this 24th day of March, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08207-DGC Document 31 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3