Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01329-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Center for Biological Diversity
Plaintiff
Earth Island Institute
Plaintiff
Dean Gould
Defendant
Sierra Forest Products
Intervenor Defendant
United States Forest Service
Defendant

Document Text:

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----

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY and EARTH ISLAND 

INSTITUTE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEAN GOULD, Sierra National 

Forest Supervisor; and UNITED 

STATES FOREST SERVICE,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 1:15-01329 WBS GSA

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION 

TO INTERVENE

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants Dean 

Gould, the Sierra National Forest Supervisor, and the United 

States Forest Service (“Forest Service”), alleging that 

defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act 

(“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in 

approving the French Fire Recovery and Reforestation Project

(“French Fire Project”). Sierra Forest Products now seeks to 

intervene as a defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 40 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Procedure 24(a) or, in the alternative, Rule 24(b). Plaintiffs 

do not oppose the motion to intervene and federal defendants take 

no position. 

A. Intervention of Right

A party may intervene as a matter of right under Rule 

24(a) if the party seeking to intervene can demonstrate that (1) 

the motion is timely; (2) it has an interest relating to the 

property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) 

the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair 

or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and 

(4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the 

applicant’s interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Donnelly v. 

Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998). In determining 

whether intervention is appropriate, the Ninth Circuit has held 

that courts are to be guided by practicable and equitable 

considerations, not technical distinctions. Donnelly, 159 F.3d 

at 409. Courts “generally interpret the requirements broadly in 

favor of intervention.” Id. 

The timeliness of a motion to intervene depends on 

three criteria: the current stage of the litigation, the possible 

prejudice to other parties, and the reason for any delay in 

moving to intervene. United States v. Carpenter, 298 F.3d 1122, 

1125 (9th Cir. 2002). All three factors weigh in favor of Sierra 

Forest Products’ intervention in this case. The Complaint was 

filed on August 31, 2015 and no substantive proceedings have yet 

occurred. (Mot. to Intervene at 5.) Sierra Forest Products was 

awarded the government contract for the French Fire timber sale 

on September 29, 2015 and promptly filed this motion to intervene 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 40 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 6
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

3

less than a month later. (Id.) Sierra Forest Products has 

agreed to follow the established summary judgment schedule and 

thus its intervention will not cause any delays. (Id.) 

Sierra Forest Products also has an interest related to 

the property or transaction challenged in this action and 

disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or 

impede its ability to protect its interest. The Ninth Circuit

has “taken the view that a party has a sufficient interest for 

intervention purposes if it will suffer a practical impairment of 

its interests as a result of the pending litigation.” Cal. ex. 

rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2006). 

“Whether an applicant for intervention as of right demonstrates 

sufficient interest in an action is a practical, threshold 

inquiry, and [n]o specific legal or equitable interest need be 

established.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness 

Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

Sierra Forest Products has contract rights that may be 

impacted by the resolution of this litigation. Sierra Forest 

Products is depending on the timber from the government contract

to keep its mill fully operational through the winter and the 

court’s findings on whether the French Fire Project complies with 

NEPA and the APA will determine whether its contract can be 

executed. (Mot. to Intervene at 7.) Sierra Forest Products also

has a broader interest in any litigation that might impede its 

ability to obtain timber from federal lands in the future. (Id.) 

It wants to ensure that NEPA continues to “achieve a balance 

between population and resource use,” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(5), and 

demonstrate that this timber harvest complies with the statute. 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 40 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 6
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

(Id. at 8-9.)

Lastly, there is a possibility that the existing 

government defendants would not adequately represent Sierra 

Forest Products’ interests. “The burden of showing inadequacy is 

‘minimal,’ and the applicant need only show that representation 

of its interests by existing parties ‘may be’ inadequate.” Sw. 

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 823 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The court considers: “(1) whether 

the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly 

make all the intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present 

party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) 

whether the would-be intervenor would offer any necessary 

elements to the proceedings that other parties would neglect.” 

Id. at 822 (citation omitted). “[T]he government’s 

representation of the public interest may not be identical to the 

individual parochial interest of a particular group just because 

both entities occupy the same posture in the litigation.” 

Citizens for Balanced Use, 647 F.3d at 899 (citation omitted).

While the interests of Sierra Forest Products and the 

government are aligned to the extent they both believe the French 

Fire Project should proceed, Sierra Forest Products has unique 

economic and employment interests associated with this timber 

sale. (Mot. to Intervene at 10.) Sierra Forest Products needs

to obtain timber as quickly as possible in order to keep its mill 

in operation through the winter and provide full-time employment 

for its workers. (Duysen Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, 15.) It also has a 

strong interest in harvesting the timber before the value of the 

wood is lost due to decay. (Id. ¶ 19.) While the government 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 40 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 6
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

5

wants the timber removed and hopes to create economic 

opportunity, it does not have the same need for expedience. 

Moreover, the timber harvest is only one aspect of the 

government’s project and it must ultimately do what is best for 

the public interest and most in line with federal regulations. 

While the two interests seem to be running on parallel tracks 

now, it is possible they could diverge as litigation proceeds. 

Accordingly, the court finds that Sierra Forest Products may 

intervene as a matter of right. 

B. Permissive Intervention

Alternatively, permissive intervention may be granted 

under Rule 24(b) when the intervenor “has a claim or defense that 

shares with the main action a common question of law or fact” and 

the motion is timely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). In exercising 

its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention 

“will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original 

parties’ rights.” Id. R. 24(b)(3). 

As is discussed above, Sierra Forest Products has an 

interest both in the manner in which courts interpret NEPA and in 

the harvest of timber in the Sierra National Forest--both of 

which are at issue in this litigation. Moreover, Sierra Forest 

Products did not cause undue delay or prejudice as it moved to 

intervene promptly after securing the government contract and has 

agreed to the established summary judgment schedule. Sierra 

Forest Products also modified its work schedule in order to 

accommodate plaintiffs and avoid the need for injunctive 

proceedings. (Mot. to Intervene at 4.) As of November 2, 2015,

it began work only on project units that are not objected to by 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 40 Filed 11/10/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

plaintiffs. (Duysen Decl. ¶ 16.) The presence of Sierra Forest 

Products will assist the court in resolving this case, which 

impacts large and varied interests, and neither plaintiffs nor 

the government oppose. Accordingly, even if Sierra Forest 

Products did not have a right to intervene, the court has the 

discretion to grant it permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sierra Forest Products’

motion to intervene be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. This 

party is now joined as a defendant in this action for all 

purposes. 

Dated: November 10, 2015

 

Case 1:15-cv-01329-WBS-EPG Document 40 Filed 11/10/15 Page 6 of 6