Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00629/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00629-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-05-629 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE

SERVICE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

DEFENDERS OF THE WILDLIFE, et al.,

Intervenors.

 /

The City of Suisun seeks to intervene as plaintiffs in the

suit filed by Home Builders Association of Northern California,

Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, California Building

Industry Association, California State Grange and Greenhorn Grange

(hereinafter Home Builders) against the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) with Defenders of Wildlife, Butte

Case 2:05-cv-00629-WBS -KJM Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 6
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

1 The sphere of influence is defined as “a plan for the

probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency”

as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Cal. Gov’t Code § 56076. LAFCO can recommend government

reorganizations using the spheres of influence as the basis for

those recommendations. Cal. Gov’t Code § 56425. 

2

Environmental Council and the California Native Plant Society

participating as defendant-intervenors. The current Home Builder’s

complaint alleges that the FWS violated the Endangered Species Act

and the National Environmental Policy Act when it designated

critical habitat for fifteen different species. 

A portion of the land that has been designated as critical

habitat, 88.4 acres, is inside of the “sphere of influence”1 of the

City of Suisun and is part of a four hundred plus acre area that

is the subject of a “major mixed-use development effort the City

has long contemplated in its General Plan.” Suisun’s Br. at 2.

The City claims that it has planned for the development of the

property for over a decade and has plans to annex the property into

the City and to zone it for development. Id.

The City has submitted a complaint which is nearly identical

to that filed by the Home Builders, it raises the same legal and

factual issues. The Home Builders and the FWS have filed

statements of non-opposition, and the environmental defendantintervenors are opposing the motion. 

The City seeks intervention both as a matter of right under

Rule 24(a) and/or by permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2).

The environmental defendant-intervenors oppose on two grounds. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-00629-WBS -KJM Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

First, they claim that the City has not properly claimed “an

interest in the subject matter of the litigation that will be

impaired absent intervention.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 2-3. They argue

that the City has not show “how the designation of critical habitat

will harm or impair the City’s stated interest.” Id. at 3. They

also ask that if the court allows intervention that the

intervention be limited to the issues raised in Home Builder’s

case, and not all the issues raised in the related case filed by

the Defenders of Wildlife.

A. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT

An order granting intervention as of right is appropriate if

the party seeking to intervene can demonstrate that (1) it has a

‘significant protectable interest’ relating to the property or

transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) the disposition

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

applicant's ability to protect its interest; (3) the application

is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately

represent the applicant's interest.” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159

F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998); County of Orange v. Air California,

799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 946

(1987). The City “bears the burden of showing that all the

requirements for intervention have been met.” United States v.

Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004).

The court has reviewed the above factors and determined that

the City has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that they

have a “significant protectable interest” which is sufficient for

Case 2:05-cv-00629-WBS -KJM Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

intervention by right. The Ninth Circuit has held that it can be

shown if the City (1) “asserts an interest that is protected under

some law, and (2) there is a ‘relationship’ between its legally

protected interest and the plaintiff's claims.” Donnelly v.

Glickman, 159 F.3d at 409 (emphasis added); Southern California

Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2002); United

States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 398 (9th Cir. 2002).

The City has mostly argued that they have an economic interest,

which courts have been reluctant to recognize except in clear

circumstances. In United States v. Alisal Water Corp., the court

held that a “non-speculative, economic interest may be sufficient

to support a right of intervention” only when the interest is

“concrete and related to the underlying subject matter of the

action.” 370 F.3d 915, 919-20 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Arakaki v.

Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir. 2003); So. Cal. Edison Co.,

307 F.3d at 803; Greene v. United States, 996 F.2d at 976); see

also Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d

810, 819 (9th Cir. 2001) (Noting that previous decisions had

rejected economic interests which were “based upon a bare

expectation” as “cognizable for intervention.”); Southern

California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2002)

(finding that the applicants were “claiming a right to intervene

based on a contingent, unsecured claim against a third-party

debtor” and this fell “far short of the direct, non-contingent,

substantial and legally protectable interest required for

intervention as a matter of right.”); Sierra Club, 995 F.2d at

Case 2:05-cv-00629-WBS -KJM Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 6
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

2 The bases are as follows: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (civil action against the United

States); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (authorizing declaratory relief); 28

U.S.C. § 2202 (authorizing injunctive relief); 16 U.S.C. § 1540(c)

& (g) (actions arising under the Endangered Species Act); and 

5 U.S.C. § 701-706 (judicial review of agency action).

5

1485. They have also not identified why or how those interests are

protectable. See Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest

Service, 66 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir. 1995); but see Scotts Valley

Band of Pomo Indians of Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States, 921

F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1990).

Despite the failure to prove intervention by right, the court

is persuaded that permissive intervention is appropriate with one

limitation. Rule 24(b)(2) allows for permissive intervention if

intervention by right is not appropriate. “Unlike Rule 24(a), a

‘significant protectable interest’ is not required by Rule 24(b)

for intervention; all that is necessary for permissive intervention

is that intervenor's ‘claim or defense and the main action have a

question of law or fact in common.’” Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v.

Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case the

City has filed a nearly identical complaint which alleges all the

same claims and arguments, and the jurisdictional bases would be

the same.2 

It is appropriate, however, to restrict the involvement of the

City to those issues raised in the case that they are seeking to

intervene in and to those issues which are related to the interests

which the City has asserted. Namely, the City shall be restricted

to raising arguments which relate to the issues concerning the

Case 2:05-cv-00629-WBS -KJM Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

species which are on the 88-acre parcel of land that is within the

sphere of influence and the area designated as critical habitat.

Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 66 F.3d 1489,

1495-96 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The motion to intervene is GRANTED with the limitations

expressed above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 3, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-00629-WBS -KJM Document 58 Filed 03/03/06 Page 6 of 6