Opinion ID: 203380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Involvement of and Intervention by the State

Text: The State did not respond until April 12, 2007 to the district court's August 2003 suggestion that, if it wanted to participate in the case, it ought to request to intervene or to be included as an amicus curiae. Maine in April 2007 filed a motion to intervene. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 24. The State's motion described the State's involvement in the case as follows: Starting in 2001, the DEP oversaw a remedial investigation of the Site. On March 3, 2004, the DEP issued an Uncontrolled Site Designation stating that the tar deposit in Dunnett's Cove and/or the PAHs in this deposit are hazardous substances and the Site is an uncontrolled hazardous substance site as defined in the Maine Uncontrolled Sites Law. In 2004, Bangor and Citizens jointly engaged a consulting firm, which on March 15, 2004, submitted a Feasibility Study Report to the DEP that recommended several remedies for the Site. On August 17, 2005, the DEP issued a letter accepting these proposed remedies and a Decision Document that identified its selected remedies. Following the district court's issuance of the Phase One Findings and Conclusions in June 2006, the DEP renewed its discussions with Bangor and Citizens regarding remedies for the Site. The parties did not reach an agreement on remedies but did reach an agreement regarding the process by which remedies would be proposed and evaluated, and this agreement was contained in a Consent Decree the parties would submit to the court separately. The State argued that it could intervene as of right [5] because its interests would be directly and irrevocably affected by the court's decision regarding the remedy phase of the underlying lawsuit between Bangor and Citizens, both because it owns the submerged lands underlying the Penobscot River and because it has the power and responsibility to oversee the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The State argued that its interests could not be adequately represented by either Bangor or Citizens because these parties are obligated to pay for the remedial actions and therefore have a potential conflict of interest regarding the selection of ... remedies, and also because the State's police power cannot be delegated to a third party. Various third and fourth parties opposed the State's motion to intervene, arguing that (a) it was untimely because it came four years after the State declined specific invitations to join the proceeding as a party; (b) the State had failed to file a complaint with its motion to intervene as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(c); and (c) the State's intervention raises the very real specter that new claims will be filed, additional parties joined, and many more years of discovery and other pretrial proceedings will be commenced. The State responded that it could not have filed a motion for intervention before the agreement embodied in the Consent Decree was reached, and that the motion and proposed Decree identify the State's causes of action and the parties against whom the State is asserting claims. On May 25, 2007, the district court granted the State's motion to intervene. Bangor II, 2007 WL 1557426, at . The court held that the State's interests would not be adequately represented by the other parties involved, and that although it was puzzling to the Court that the State decided to wait approximately four years to intervene, it was also true that the State has acted expeditiously since learning how its interests were imperilled by the Court's June 27, 2006 decision. Id. at . The court also ruled that the State's representation that it `will take no action in this case against any of the third or fourth parties' suggests that its intervention will either have no impact on the Third Parties or may serve to consolidate and simplify any attempts to hold any third or fourth party liable for remediation of the site. Id. at . The court further held that under the unique circumstances of this case, the Court believes it is a proper exercise of its discretion to excuse the State's failure to file a pleading and rely on the presented record in considering the merits of the claims that serve as the basis for the State's request to intervene. Id.