N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. STATE OF C ALIFOR

NIA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , v. DANIEL JAM ES TREB AS, M ova

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-57098

D.C . No. 2:06-c v-02667-GPS-E M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge P. Sc hia

ve lli, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED AUG 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Danie l Ja m e s Tre ba s, toge the r with othe r re side nts of theAta sc a de ro State Hospita l (“ Tre b a s” ), m ove d, pro se , to inte rve ne in a suit by the Unite d

State s a ga inst sta

t e offic ia ls re sponsiblefor C a l ifornia ’ s m e nta l he a lth se rvic e s. The distric t c o urt de nie d the m otion to inte rve ne a s untim e ly . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . W e re vie w de novo the de nia l of a pa rty ’ s m otion to inte

rve ne a s a m atte r of right, e xc e pt for the issue of tim e line s s, whic h we re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion. N AAC P v . N e w York , 413 U.S. 345, 366 (1973); C nty . of Orange

v . Air C alifornia , 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th C ir. 1986). Fe de ra l R u le of C i vil Proc e dure 24(a ) provide s tha t “ [o] n a tim e l y m otion, the c ourt m

ust pe rm it” the inte rve ntion of a n a pplic ant who “ c la im s a

n inte re st re lating to the

prope rty or tra nsa c tion tha

t is thesubje c t of the a c tion, a nd is so situa te d tha t disposing of the

a c tion m ay a s a

pra c tic a l m atte r im

pa i r or im pe de the m ova nt’ s a b ility to prote c t

its inte re st, unle ss e xisting pa rtie s a de quate ly

re pre se nt that inte re st.” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 24(a )(2). Although R u le 24 is c onstrue d broa dly in favor of inte rve nors, W

ilde rne s s Soc ’yv . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba

nc ), the a pplic ant be ars the burde n of showing tha t e a c h of the e le m e nts is m e t, Pre te v . Bradbury , 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th C ir. 2006).

2Tim e ly filing is a “ t hre shold re quire m e n t ” for inte rve ntion a s of right. Le agueof Unite d

Latin Am. C

itize ns v . W

ilson , 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th C ir. 1997) (c ita

tion omitte d). C o urts in theNinth C irc uit e va luat e thre e fa c tors to de te rm i ne the tim e line ss of a m otion to inte

rve ne : “ (1) the sta ge of the proc e e ding a t whic h a

n a pplic ant se e ks to inte rve ne ; (2) the pre judic e to othe r partie s; a

nd (3) the re a son for a

nd le ngth of thede la

y .” C alifornia De

p’t of Tox ic Substanc e

s C ontrol v . C

omme rc ial Re alty

Proje c ts, Inc . , 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th C ir. 2002) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The distric t c ourt a pplie d the c orre c t Ninth C irc uit sta

n da rd and did not err by

fa iling to c o nside r the pre j udic e that the propose d

inte rve nors would suffe r if the ir m otion we re de nie d, a fa c tor c onside re d by

othe r c irc u its but not our own. The m otion to inte

rve ne wa s file d

m ore tha n four y e ars a fte r the c ourt a pprove d the c onse nt judgm e n t. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha

t the m otion to inte

rve ne wa s file d at a

late sta g e in the proc e e dings. Se e C nty . of Orange , 799 F.2d a t 538 (c o nc luding tha

t a m o tion to interve ne wa s untim e l y whe re the m ova

nt wa ite d to file until a fte r the pa rtie s ha d re a c he d a

n a gre e m e nt). Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion in c onc luding tha t the m otion to inte rve ne file d j ust be fore the c onse nt judgm e n t re ga rding Ata sc a de ro wa s se t to 3e xpire would pre judic e the e xisting pa

rtie s, who e xpe nde d

c onside ra

ble e fforts inve stiga ting thea lle ge d viola

tions, ne gotia

ting a se ttle m e nt, a

nd im ple m e nting the c onse n t judgm e nt. Id .

“ A pa rty se e king to interve ne m

ust a c t a s soon a s he knows or ha s re a son to know tha t his intere sts m ight be a dve rse ly a ffe c t e d by

the outc om e of the litiga tion.” Unite d State

s v . Ore gon , 913 F.2d 576, 589 (9th C ir. 1990) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). The m onitor’ s inspe c tions oc c urre d se m iannua lly from 2007 through 2011, a

nd Tre ba s c onc e d e s tha

t at le a st som e of the propose d inte rve nors ha

ve re side d in Ata sc a de ro sinc e 2007 a nd we re aware of the c onse n t judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in c onc luding tha t the d e la y in filing wa s not c onvinc ingly e xpla ine d . Se e Alaniz v . Tillie Le w is Foods , 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th C ir. 1978) (e m pha s iz ing tha

t propose d inte rve nors should ha ve re c ogniz e d

the risk tha

t se ttle m e nt de c re e c o uld be to the ir de trim e nt and not wa ite d ove r two y e ars a fte r suit wa s file d to inte rve ne ).

AFFIRM E D.

4