Opinion ID: 1210694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: BARTON. Barton's Motion to Intervene

Text: The district court granted Barton's motion to intervene in part, limiting intervention to the remedial phase of the litigation. [12] Barton contends that he should have been granted intervention in all phases of the litigation, either as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or permissively under Rule 24(b). Intervention on the merits would have allowed Barton to present his argument that MM-1 is invalid because the Forest Service lacks authority to regulate mining under the NFMA. In light of our disposition of SREP's appeal, however, there is no need for us to address whether the district court erred by failing to allow Barton to intervene at the merits stage of the litigation. Because there is no need for any further district court proceedings, there is no need for us to address Barton's challenge to the district court's ruling. We therefore dismiss Barton's appeal as moot. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1301 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d 1141, 1142-43 (9th Cir.1981).