Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08164-0/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

1

The parties, particularly CREDA, are reminded of the font and type-size limitations

set forth in the Court’s local rules. See LRCiv 7.1(b). These limitations apply to text and

footnotes of all filings.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Grand Canyon Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Robert

W. Johnson, Commissioner U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8164 PCT-DGC

ORDER

Several states and entities, referred to in this order as “Intervenors,” have filed

motions to intervene in this action. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,

New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, and the Southern

Nevada Water Authority (collectively, the “Basin States”); the Colorado River Energy

Distributors Association (“CREDA”); and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District,

the Imperial Irrigation District, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

(collectively, the “Water Districts”). Dkt. ##75, 79, 86. Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the

motions or, alternatively, to limit Intervenors to the remedy phase of this case. Dkt. #95.

The Court will grant the Intervenors’ motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)

and establish certain procedural guidelines for their participation in this case.1

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 98 Filed 06/03/08 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 -

I. Legal Standard.

“Rule 24 traditionally has received a liberal construction in favor of applicants for

intervention.” Wash. State Bldg. and Const. Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. Spellman, 684 F.2d

627, 630 (9th Cir. 1982). A court may permit a third party to intervene under Rule 24(b) if

(1) the applicant for intervention has an independent basis for jurisdiction, (2) the motion is

timely, and (3) the applicant’s claims or defenses have a question of law or fact in common

with the main action. See U.S. v. City of Los Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 403 (9th Cir.

2002). In determining whether intervention is appropriate, “the court must consider whether

the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’

rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). 

II. Discussion.

Plaintiff argues that Intervenors’ motions are untimely. Dkt. #95. “Whether a motion

is timely is determined by analyzing three factors: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which

an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and

length of the delay.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Com'n of City and County of San

Francisco, 934 F.2d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotes and citation omitted).

A. Stage of the Proceedings.

Intervenors have sought to intervene as defendants at a relatively early stage of this

case. Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed on December 7, 2007. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff filed

a supplemental complaint on April 10, 2008. Dkt. #59. The existing Defendants have not

yet answered the initial or supplemental complaints. Intervenors sought to intervene less

than one month after the supplemental complaint was filed.

The first steps in this case have been the filing of a motion for summary judgment by

Plaintiff on February 15, 2008 (Dkt. #15) and the filing of a motion to dismiss and cross

motion for summary judgment by the Federal Defendants on March 17, 2008 (Dkt. #25).

Briefing on these motions will be completed on June 6, 2008. Dkt. #58. Intervenors sought

to intervene before this briefing was completed and, as explained below, their intervention

will not expand the briefing or delay its completion. 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 98 Filed 06/03/08 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

2

The Basin States specifically note that they do not intend to file additional briefing

on the pending motions. Dkt. #75 at 14. The other Intervenors imply as much. Dkt. ##79

at 2, 15 n. 5; 86 at 15. The Court concludes that additional defense briefing on the pending

motion is not required.

- 3 -

B. Prejudice to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserts that allowing Intervenors to intervene would “unnecessarily impair

the efficiency of this litigation by filing duplicative briefing and motions.” Dkt. #95 at 13.

Plaintiff is particularly concerned about prolonging and expanding briefing on the pending

motions, conceding that prejudice “would not be a concern” if additional briefing is denied.

Id. at 4. 

Permitting Intervenors to intervene will not prolong or expand briefing on the pending

motions. All Intervenors have agreed to join the Federal Defendants’ briefing on the

motions. Dkt. ##75 at 1, 79 at 2, 86 at 3. No additional briefing will be permitted.2

Intervenors have also stated that they will respond to the supplemental complaint when the

Federal Defendants respond. Intervenors have pledged to minimize duplicative pleadings

in this case, and the Court will require them to coordinate their litigation activities as

described below. 

C. Reason for Delay.

Intervenors note that they have intervened early in this case, that they coordinated

their efforts prior to intervening, and that they intervened shortly after the Federal Defendants

filed their first motions and revealed at least a portion of their case strategy. The Court finds

these to be reasonable grounds for the delay that has occurred.

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should limit Intervenors to the remedy phase of this

case. The Court will decline the suggestion. Intervenors’ interests in releases from Glen

Canyon Dam are sufficient to warrant their participation in all phases.

 

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 98 Filed 06/03/08 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 -

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Intervenors’ motions to intervene (Dkt. ##75, 79, 86) are granted. Intervenors

are permitted to intervene as defendants.

2. Intervenors shall be deemed to have joined the Federal Defendants’ briefing

on pending motions (Dkt. ## 25, 27, 74) and shall not file additional briefs on

these motions.

3. Intervenors shall respond to the supplemental complaint (Dkt. #59) on the

same schedule as the Federal Defendants.

4. Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will

require Intervenors to coordinate their litigation activities. Specifically,

Intervenors will be divided into the three groups identified at the outset of this

order – the Basin States, CREDA, and the Water Districts. Each of these

groups will coordinate the litigation activities of its members and shall file one

pleading on behalf of all of its members. If a group concludes that a single

pleading cannot serve the interests of all members, the group shall, before

filing multiple pleadings, place a conference call to the Court, with Plaintiff’s

counsel and a representative of the other groups and the Federal Defendants

on the line, to discuss whether multiple pleadings will be permitted. Each

group shall designate a single coordinating counsel to communicate on

procedural and scheduling matters with Plaintiff, the Federal Defendants, and

the other groups. Coordinating counsel shall be identified by June 27, 2008.

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08164-DGC Document 98 Filed 06/03/08 Page 4 of 4