Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02130/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02130-0/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity; 

Maricopa Audubon Society, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

KENNETH SALAZAR, Secretary of the

Interior; ROWAN GOULD, Acting

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2130-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The San Carlos Apache Tribe (“the Tribe”) petitions to intervene as of right and

permissively under Federal Rule of Procedure 24. Doc. 20. The motion is unopposed. The

Court will grant the motion.

To qualify for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a), a proposed intervenor

must (1) have a significant protectable interest in the property or transaction that is the

subject of the litigation, (2) be situated so that the disposition of the litigation may impair the

proposed intervenor’s ability to protect that interest, (3) demonstrate that his interests are not

adequately represented by other parties, and (4) move to intervene in a timely manner.

Arakaki V. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Tribe asserts that the motion is timely, having been brought less than two months

after commencement of the litigation. Doc. 20. The Tribe also asserts several protectable

Case 2:10-cv-02130-DGC Document 24 Filed 01/10/11 Page 1 of 2
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 -

interests, including its involvement in the agency review at issue and its religious and cultural

interests affected by the health and vitality of the Desert Nesting Bald Eagle (“Desert

Eagle”). Id. The Tribe argues that its interests will be impaired if the agency’s action with

regard to the Desert Eagle is not enjoined, and that existing Plaintiffs are not in a position to

represent the Tribe’s unique interests. Id. 

No party has opposed the motion or contradicted these assertions. The Court finds

that the Tribe has established a right to intervention under Rule 24(a). See Sagebrush

Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1983).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Tribe’s motion to intervene (Doc. 20) is granted.

2. The Clerk shall file the Tribe’s proposed complaint lodged at Doc. 21 as a

complaint in intervention.

3. The Tribe may file a memorandum in support of the pending motion for

preliminary injunction (Doc. 15) by January 28, 2011. The memorandum

should not repeat arguments already made in briefing on the pending motion.

Defendants my file a memorandum in response to the Tribe’s memorandum

by February 18, 2011. The Tribe may file a reply memorandum, not to

exceed seven pages, by February 28, 2011.

DATED this 7th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02130-DGC Document 24 Filed 01/10/11 Page 2 of 2