National Meat Association v. Brown et al

Filing 68

ORDER GRANTING MOTION to INTERVENE filed by Animal Legal Defense Fund, Humane Farming Association, Farm Sanctuary Inc., Humane Society of the United States, document 46 ; motion terminated and hearing vacated; order signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/13/2009. (Rooney, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE, 13 Plaintiff-Intervenor 14 v. 15 EDMUND GERALD BROWN, et. al, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / Plaintiff National Meat Association ("NMA") brought the instant action for declaratory and injunctive relief on December 23, 2008. The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Inc., the Humane Farming Association, and Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a Motion to Intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. NMA filed a non-opposition on February 12, 2009. The Court considers the motion appropriate for disposition without oral argument. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), this matter is submitted on the pleadings without oral argument. Therefore, the hearing set for February 25, 2009 on the Motion to Intervene is VACATED. Having considered the moving and non-opposition papers, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order. The Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. In so ruling, however, the Court expresses its concern about the risk of redundancy of arguments and positions, and undue delay. In order to prevent the Court 1 and NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, CASE NO. CV-F-08-1963 LJO DLB ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE (Doc. 46) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 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

and the parties from being overwhelmed, the Court will require these applicants to coordinate their positions with defendants and to file motions and/or briefs only if the defendants refuse to make an argument that the applicants consider relevant. In imposing this requirement, the Court cautions that merely because counsel for the applicants believe that they can word an argument better or that there may be a case that could be cited but was not, counsel for applicants should not file a separate brief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 February 13, 2009 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2