IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, )

 )

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 10-0254-WS-C 

 ) 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT ) 

SERVICE, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. )

ORDER

 This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants 

(doc. 16) filed by putative intervenors the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent 

Petroleum Association of America, the U.S. Oil & Gas Association, and the International 

Association of Drilling Contractors (collectively, the “Associations”). Also pending is plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 29). Both motions are unopposed. 

I. Motion to Intervene.

 Plaintiff, Defenders of Wildlife, brought this action against various governmental 

defendants, specifically the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”), the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and Ken Salazar in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. 

In the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff challenges MMS’s practice of granting “categorical 

exclusions” from National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) review to exploratory drilling 

operations for oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.1

 According to the First Amended 

Complaint, plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration that defendants acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in 

 1

 NEPA generally requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact 

statements (“EIS”) for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). However, an agency may apply a “categorical 

exclusion” to the EIS requirement where “a category of actions ... do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. 

Case 1:10-cv-00254-WS-C Document 31 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 5
-2- 

violation of NEPA by granting categorical exclusions to exploratory wells and drilling operations 

authorized since April 20, 2010; (ii) a declaration that MMS’s handbook authorizing categorical 

exclusions for exploratory wells and drilling operations is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to 

law; (iii) vacatur and remand of all categorical exclusions granted for exploratory wells and 

drilling operations since April 20, 2010; (iv) an injunction barring MMS from issuing further 

categorical exclusions for exploratory wells and drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico; and 

(v) vacatur and remand of certain oil and gas lease sales and injunction of current and future 

lease sales until a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared. 

 The Associations now seek leave to intervene in this action as defendants pursuant to 

Rule 24, Fed.R.Civ.P. As grounds for their request, the Associations offer evidence that they are 

heavily engaged in exploration for and development of oil and gas resources in the Gulf of 

Mexico, and that their interests would be directly impacted by the relief requested by Defenders 

of Wildlife. In particular, the Associations indicate that many of the challenged drilling plans are 

those of the Associations’ members or are for drilling operations to be conducted by their 

members, and that many of the challenged bids for new leases were made by their members or 

were to be operated by their members. 

 The Associations’ request to intervene is governed by Rule 24, Fed.R.Civ.P. “Rule 24 

provides two avenues for a nonparty to intervene in a lawsuit; intervention as of right and 

intervention with permission of the court.” In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 

1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. v. Tenesaw Land and 

Timber Co., 233 F.R.D. 622 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (considering and applying both intervention as of 

right and permissive intervention principles). To intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a), a 

party “must show that it has an interest in the subject matter of the suit, that its ability to protect 

that interest may be impaired by the disposition of the suit, and that existing parties in the suit 

cannot adequately protect that interest.” Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 

F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Georgia v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 

1242, 1250 (11th Cir. 2002)).2

 2

 A Rule 24(a) motion must also be “timely.” Here, there can be no reasonable 

argument that the Associations’ Motion is untimely, given that it was filed barely a month after 

the inception of the lawsuit, and prior to the filing of any answer or other responsive pleadings 

(Continued) 

Case 1:10-cv-00254-WS-C Document 31 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 5
-3- 

 Upon careful review of the Associations’ Motion, and noting the lack of any opposition 

by existing parties, the Court readily concludes that all of the Rule 24(a) prerequisites for 

intervention as of right are satisfied here. The relief sought by Defenders of Wildlife would 

directly and profoundly impact the Associations, the Associations’ activities in the Gulf of 

Mexico, and the viability of lease bids and permit approvals as to those Associations, essentially 

taking away drilling rights that MMS has already granted to the Associations’ members; 

therefore, it is quite clear that the Associations’ “interest in the subject matter of the litigation is 

direct, substantial and legally protectable.” Georgia, 302 F.3d at 1249. Likewise, if the 

requested relief were granted to Defenders of Wildlife, the Associations’ ability to protect their 

interest as described above would undoubtedly be impaired. See id. at 1258 (“Where a party 

seeking to intervene in an action claims an interest in the very property and very transaction that 

is the subject of the main action, the potential stare decisis effect may supply the practical 

disadvantage which warrants intervention as of right.”) (citation omitted). Finally, based on the 

non-identical (and potentially divergent) goals and objectives of the governmental defendants 

and the Associations, the Court finds that the Associations have met their “minimal” burden of 

showing that the existing parties cannot adequately represent their interest. Id. at 1255-56 

(citation omitted). 

 For all of the foregoing reasons, the Associations’ Motion to Intervene (doc. 16) is 

granted as of right, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.3

 

by the named defendants. In no way, shape or form have any of the existing parties been 

prejudiced by the lapse of time preceding the Associations’ filing of their Rule 24 motion. 

3

 Alternatively, the Court finds that the Associations are properly allowed to 

intervene here on a permissive intervention theory. Under Rule 24(b), district courts have 

discretion to grant permission to intervene “when [the] applicant’s claim or defense and the main 

action have a question of law or fact in common.” Bayshore Ford, 471 F.3d at 1246 (citation 

omitted); see also Mt. Hawley, 425 F.3d at 1312 (“Permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 24(b) is appropriate where a party’s claim or defense and the main action have a question 

of law or fact in common and the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the adjudication 

of the rights of the original parties.”) (citing Georgia, 302 F.3d at 1250). The Associations’ 

defenses to Defenders of Wildlife’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief share numerous 

common questions of law or fact with issues already joined in this litigation, and there is no 

reason to believe that the Associations’ participation will delay or prejudice the adjudication of 

any other party’s rights. 

Case 1:10-cv-00254-WS-C Document 31 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 5
-4- 

II. Motion to Amend Complaint.

 Also pending is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 

29). According to Defenders of Wildlife, the purpose of the amendment is to update various 

factual statements regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its aftermath, and to include 

certain claims for violation of the Endangered Species Act, which claims were subject to a 60-

day notice period that plaintiff has now fulfilled. 

 Plaintiff’s request to amend its Complaint is governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part that “[t]he court should freely give leave when 

justice so requires.” Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. Courts have recognized that Rule 15(a) 

“severely restricts” a district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend. Sibley v. Lando, 437 

F.3d 1067, 1073 (11th Cir. 2005). As a general proposition, “[u]nless a substantial reason exists 

to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the District Court is not broad enough to permit denial.” 

Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., 470 F.3d 1036, 1041 (11th Cir. 

2006) (citation omitted); see also Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1319 (11th Cir. 

1999) (similar). That said, leave to amend can properly be denied under circumstances of 

“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue 

of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v. 

Florida Mowing and Landscape Service, Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation 

omitted). None of those circumstances appear to be present here. 

 Both the named defendants and the Associations have indicated that they do not oppose 

the proposed amendment. (Doc. 29, at 2; doc. 30.) In light of the other parties’ non-opposition, 

the absence of any conceivable prejudice or delay flowing from that amendment, and the 

mandate of Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so 

requires, the Court grants the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. 

III. Conclusion. 

 For all of the following reasons, it is ordered as follows: 

1. The Motion for Leave to Intervene (doc. 16) is granted. The American 

Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the U.S. 

Oil & Gas Association, and the International Association of Drilling Contractors 

are all granted leave to intervene herein as defendants pursuant to Rule 24, subject 

Case 1:10-cv-00254-WS-C Document 31 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 5
-5- 

to the restriction that they are ordered to file consolidated briefing in this matter, 

rather than each Association filing separately; 

2. The intervenors’ Motion for Expedited Review (doc. 17) is moot; 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 29) is 

granted; and 

4. Pursuant to Section II.A.6. of this District Court’s Administrative Procedures for 

Filing, Signing and Verifying Documents by Electronic Means, plaintiff is 

ordered, on or before August 16, 2010, to file its Second Amended Complaint as 

a freestanding document in substantially the form appended to its motion as an 

exhibit. Similarly, the intervenors are ordered, on or before August 16, 2010, to 

file their answer as a freestanding document in substantially the form appended to 

their motion as an exhibit. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00254-WS-C Document 31 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 5