Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00953-2/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. CIV. S 05-0953 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

et al., 

Defendants.

and

CALIFORNIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

and AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER

ASSOCIATION,

Applicants for Intervention.

----oo0oo----

Through the present motion, California Forestry Association

and American Forest & Paper Association (“Applicants for

Intervention”) seek to intervene in this action on a permissive

basis under Rule 24(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 07/21/05 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

2

Counsel for the Applicants has represented to the Court that the

other parties to this action do not oppose the proposed

intervention, and no opposition has been filed. 

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 (9 Cir. 1998). The th

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 (9 Cir. 1977). th

There is no dispute that the threshold requirement for

permissive intervention have been satisfied in this matter. The

instant lawsuit was only recently filed and intervention has been

sought on a timely basis. Similarly, because the interests

advanced by Applicants in Intervention relate to the same 2004

Framework at issue in the main action, and because the same

jurisdictional bases apply, the remaining prerequisites (common

issues and independent jurisdictional grounds) are also met.

In exercising its discretion to allow permissive

intervention, the Court finds that the 2004 Framework impacts

large and varied interests, including those advanced by

Applicants in Intervention. The potential magnitude of the 2004

Framework is great, and the implications flowing from any

challenge to it may be considerable. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 07/21/05 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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

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

3

Ensuring that all competing interests implicated by the Framework

are heard, including those advanced by Applicants in Intervention

herein, will contribute to the just and equitable resolution of

these cases. Consequently permissive intervention will be

allowed, and the motion presently before the Court is GRANTED.1

In permitting such intervention, however, the Court must

still consider “whether the intervention will unduly delay or

prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2). In that regard, the court

may impose reasonable conditions and restrictions on the

participation of intervenors so that their involvement does not

derail the efficient conduct of these proceedings. See

Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 380

(1987).

The Court will consequently impose limits on the briefing

allowed in any summary judgment motion filed in this matter, or

in related cases also before the Court. Opening points and

authorities will be limited to fifty (50) pages in length. 

Opposition papers are subject to a thirty (30) page limitation,

and reply memoranda shall not exceed (10) pages. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 07/21/05 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

4

Any brief filed on behalf of any intervenor, or group of

intervenors represented by single counsel, shall not be longer

than twenty (20) pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00953-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 07/21/05 Page 4 of 4