The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Judge
Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING ADDISON ENERGY RESOURCES LLC'S MOTION TO INTERVENE
The court has read and considered Addison Energy Resources LLC's ("Addison") motion to intervene, opposition to the motion, Addison's reply, and Plaintiffs' (collectively "Roberts") joinder in
motion. It also heard oral argument by counsel for the proposed intervenor and the parties. Based on consideration, the court rules as follows:
Addison Energy Resources LLC moves to intervene in this action, as of right under Federal Rules of Civil
Rule 24(a)(2) ("Rule 24(a)(2)") or, in the alternative, requests that the court exercise its discretion Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24(b)(1)(B) to permit Addison to intervene.
In the absence of a statute conferring an unconditional right to intervene, Rule 24(a)(2) governs a party's for intervention as of right in the federal courts. Rule 24(a)(2) provides:
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action . . . when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
24(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the requirements of Rule 24(a)(2) may be broken into four elements, each of which must be demonstrated in order to provide a non-party with a right to the application must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a "significantly protectable" interest to the transaction that is the subject of the litigation; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interest; the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the parties before the court. See Northwest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836 (9th Cir. 1996). In their opposition, Defendants only addressed the fourth factor, the adequacy of the representation, arguing that Addison's interests are more than represented by the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit and that their arguments to the contrary in their motion to a dispute over litigation tactics, which is not recognized as a sufficient ground for intervention as a of right. Although Defendants have essentially conceded that Addison has made a sufficient showing as to three factors, the court will address each in turn.
When evaluating whether the requirements for intervention of right are met, a court normally follows and equitable considerations and construes the governing rule broadly in favor of proposed intervenors, policy in favor of intervention serves both efficient resolution of issues and broadened access to the Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2); Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011); Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). In evaluating whether Addison satisfies these this court must "take all well-pleaded, nonconclusory allegations in the motion to intervene, the proposed ...