Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02130/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02130-1/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 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (“SRPMIC”) petitions to intervene

as of right and permissively under Federal Rule of Procedure 24. Doc. 29. 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).

SRPMIC asserts that the motion is timely, having been brought approximately three

months after commencement of the litigation. Doc. 29. SRPMIC also asserts several

Case 2:10-cv-02130-DGC Document 40 Filed 03/01/11 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 -

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

“sovereign interest in protecting and preserving the Desert Eagle” and its habitat. Id.

SRPMIC argues that its interests will be impaired if the agency’s action with regard to the

Desert Eagle is not challenged, and that existing Plaintiffs are not in a position to represent

the SRPMIC’s unique interests. Id. 

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

that SRPMIC 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. SRPMIC’s motion to intervene (Doc. 29) is granted.

2. The Clerk shall file SRPMIC’s proposed complaint lodged at Doc. 30 as a

complaint in intervention.

3. SRPMIC shall coordinate with the parties to avoid any delay in the existing

schedule (Doc. 38).

DATED this 1st day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02130-DGC Document 40 Filed 03/01/11 Page 2 of 2