Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00905/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00905-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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----

CALIFORNIA FORESTRY 

ASSOCIATION and AMERICAN

FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION, NO. CIV-S-05-0905 MCE/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

DALE N. BOSWORTH, et al., 

Defendants

and

SIERRA NEVADA PROTECTION

CAMPAIGN, et al.,

Defendant-Intervenors

and

PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL,

Applicant for Intervention.

----oo0oo----

Through the present motion, Pacific Rivers Council

 (“PRC”) seek to intervene in this action on a permissive basis

Case 2:05-cv-00905-MCE-EFB Document 55 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

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

Counsel for PRC 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 PRC 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 PRC. The

potential magnitude of the 2004 Framework is great, and the

implications flowing from any challenge to it may be

considerable. Ensuring that all competing interests implicated

by the Framework are heard, including those advanced by PRC

Case 2:05-cv-00905-MCE-EFB Document 55 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

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-00905-MCE-EFB Document 55 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-00905-MCE-EFB Document 55 Filed 07/21/05 Page 4 of 4