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. IVAN A. C ERM AK; e t a l., De fe nda

nts, a nd TIM R IC HARDSON, a s Truste e of JI Founda tion Trust; et a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, v. ER IC LIGHTER , M ova

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-36020

D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00603-C L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Owe n M . Panne r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED JAN 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.Subm itte d Ja nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Eric Lighte r a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his motion to inte rve ne in a

la wsuit to fore c lose upon fe de ra l taxlie ns on re a l prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thede nia l of inte rve ntion a s of right, a

nd for a n a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of pe rm issive inte rve ntion. Pre te v . Bradbury , 438 F.3d 949, 953-54 & n.6 (9th C ir. 2006). W e a ffirm in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Lighte r’ s m otion for interve ntion a s of right unde r Fe d e ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 24(a ) be c a use Lighte r fa ile d

to m e e t his burde n to show tha

t a ll re q u ire m e nts for inte rve ntion we re m e t. S e e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 24(c ) (a

m otion to inte

rve ne “ m ust sta t e the grounds for interve ntion a nd be a c c om pa nie d by a ple a d ing tha

t se ts out thec la im

or de fe nse for whic h inte rve ntion is sought” ); Unite d State s v . Alisal W

ate r C orp. , 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th C ir. 2004) (se tting forth four-pa rt te st for de te rm ining interve ntion a s of right and e xpla ining tha

t “ [t] he pa

rty se e king to interve ne be ars the burde n of showing that all the re quire m e nts for inte rve ntion ha v e be e n m e t ” ); se ealso Sw . C tr. for

** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 2 - 3 6 0 2 0 2Biologic al Div e rsity v . Be r g , 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th C ir. 2001) (whe n de c iding a m otion to inte

rve ne , c ourts ne e d not ta

ke a s true a lle gations tha

t a re a sha m or frivolous). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Lighte r’ s m otion for pe rm issiveinte rve ntion be c a use Lighte r fa ile d to show tha t the re q uire m e nts for pe rm issiveinte rve ntion we re m e t. Se e S. C a l. Edison C

o . v . Ly nc h , 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th C ir. 2002) (listing “ thre shold re quire m e nts” for pe rm issive inte rve ntion). Ac c ordingly , we dism iss tha t portion of Lighte

r’ s a ppe a l for la c k of a ppe lla te jurisdic tion. Se eC

anate lla v . C

alifornia , 404 F.3d 1106, 1117 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ [W ] e a llow a

ppe a l of the de nia l of a m otion for pe rm i ssive inte rve ntion only if the tria l c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion.” ). Lighte r’ s m otion to ta

ke judic ia l notic e , file d on April 16, 2013, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 3 6 0 2 0 3