Puppies 'N Love et al v. Phoenix, City of
Filing
37
ORDER granting 21 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/26/2014.(DGC, nvo)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Puppies 'N Love, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-14-00073-PHX-DGC
Phoenix,
13
Defendant.
14
15
The Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”) has filed a motion to
16
intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 21. The
17
motion is fully briefed and no party has requested oral argument. The Court will grant
18
the motion under Rule 24(b).
19
A court may grant permissive intervention “where the applicant for intervention
20
shows (1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the
21
applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or question of
22
fact in common.” United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 403 (9th Cir.
23
2002). Permissive intervention is a matter within the sound discretion of the district
24
court. See Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2002).
25
HSUS has satisfied each requirement for permissive intervention. Although the
26
Court is sensitive to Plaintiff’s concern that permitting HSUS to intervene will create a
27
“two-on-one” dynamic in this litigation (Doc. 29 at 14), the Court concludes that HSUS’
28
particular interest and specialized knowledge will aid the Court’s analysis.
1
2
3
IT IS ORDERED that the Humane Society of the United States’ motion to
intervene (Doc. 21) is granted.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2014.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?