“because such status does not allow [applicant] to raise issues or arguments formally and gives [applicant] no right of appeal”); Smith, 651 F.2d at 1325 (“In appropriate circumstances, . . . stare decisis may supply the requisite practical impairment warranting intervention of right.”). As such, intervention is necessary to protect the United States’ substantial interest in this litigation. The Application for Intervention Is Timely In the Ninth Circuit, three factors are weighed in determining whether a motion for intervention is timely: “(1) the stage of the proceeding in which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.” County of Orange v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Oregon, 745 F.2d 550, 552 (9th Cir. 1984)). “Mere lapse of time alone is not determinative.” Id. Rather, as the Supreme Court has emphasized, “[t]imeliness is to be determined from all the circumstances.” NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366 (1973); see also Day, 505 F.3d at 966 (granting state intervenor’s motion where it could not “be said that the state ignored the litigation or held back from participation to gain tactical advantage[,]” and noting that “all the circumstances of the case must be considered in ascertaining whether or not a motion to intervene is timely[.]”) (quoting Legal Aid Soc’y of Alameda County v. Dunlop, 618 F.2d 48, 50 (9th Cir. 1980)). In this case, all three prongs of the timeliness analysis weigh in favor of granting the United States’ intervention motion. First, this motion is being filed at a sufficiently early stage of the proceeding because the district court has not yet “substantively — and substantially — engaged the issues in [the] case.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson (LULAC), 131 F.3d 1297, 1303 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, the Court granted a motion by Defendants to dismiss, but
course, that additional delay is not alone decisive (otherwise every intervention motion would be denied out of hand because it carried with it, almost by definition, the prospect of prolonging the litigation).”) (emphasis in original). Third, the United States has compelling reasons for filing this motion at this time, rather than immediately after the initiation of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. For the past nine months, the United States has engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with the parties in an effort to reach an amicable pre-suit resolution of the United States’ and Plaintiffs’ claims. These settlement negotiations began after the United States completed its investigation of the State’s system of providing employment services to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The negotiations did not reach impasse until earlier this month. Accordingly, this Court should find that the United States’ motion to intervene is timely. The United States’ Interest is Inadequately Represented by Existing Parties The final requirement for intervention as of right is that the proposed intervenor’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the case. “The [proposed intervenor’s] burden of showing inadequacy of representation is ‘minimal’ and satisfied if the applicant can demonstrate that representation of its interests ‘may be’ inadequate.” Citizens for Balanced Use, 647 F.3d at 898 (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003)). Three factors are relevant: “(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect.” Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086 (citing California v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1986)).