Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04723/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04723-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a

California corporation doing business as

AT&T CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff and Petitioner

 v.

THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK and THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WALNUT

CREEK,

Defendants and Respondents. /

No. C-05-4723 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART CALIFORNIA CABLE

& TELECOMMUNICATIONS

ASSOCIATION’S MOTION TO

INTERVENE

(Docket No. 23)

Before the Court is California Cable & Telecommunications Association’s (“CCTA”)

motion, filed March 3, 2006, to intervene in the instant action. Plaintiff Pacific Bell

Telephone Company, doing business as AT&T California (“AT&T”), and defendants City of

Walnut Creek and the City Council of the City of Walnut Creek (jointly “City”) have filed

separate oppositions to the motion; CCTA has filed a consolidated reply. Having

considered the papers filed in support and in opposition to the motion and the arguments of

counsel, and for the reasons set forth at the April 7, 2006 hearing, the Court rules as

follows.

Where, as here, a party seeks intervention as a matter of right in the absence of a

federal statute conferring an unconditional right to intervene, it “must meet four

Case 3:05-cv-04723-MMC Document 57 Filed 04/13/06 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

requirements: (1) the applicant must timely move to intervene; (2) the applicant must have

a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject

of the action; (3) the applicant must be situated such that the disposition of the action may

impair or impede the party’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest

must not be adequately represented by existing parties.” See Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324

F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). Even assuming, arguendo, CCTA has adequately

demonstrated that it has a “significantly protectable interest,” it has not demonstrated that

the City will not adequately represent CCTA’s interests. Accordingly, CCTA’s motion to

intervene as a matter of right, pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, is DENIED. 

“An applicant who seeks permissive intervention must prove that it meets three

threshold requirements: (1) it shares a common question of law or fact with the main action;

(2) its motion is timely; and (3) the court has an independent basis for jurisdiction over the

applicant’s claims.” See Donnelly v Glickman, 159 F.3d at 412. “Even if an applicant

satisfies those threshold requirements, the district court has discretion to deny permissive

intervention.” See id. “In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the

intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original

parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Although the Court finds CCTA has satisfied the three

threshold requirements for permissive intervention, permitting CCTA to litigate its

affirmative claims would unduly delay the resolution of the instant action. Accordingly,

CCTA’s motion for permissive intervention is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

CCTA may intervene for the purpose of defending against the claims asserted by AT&T,

but may not assert any claims on its own behalf. CCTA’s Answer shall be filed no later

than April 21, 2006.

This order terminates Docket No. 23.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: April 13, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04723-MMC Document 57 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 2