Sequoia ForestKeeper et al v. Watson et al

Filing 27

ORDER on Sierra Forest Products' 20 Motion to Intervene signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/27/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, and
EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE,
Plaintiffs,

11

14

(Doc. No. 20)
ALFRED WATSON, in his official
capacity as the District Ranger for the
Kern River Ranger District of the Sequoia
National Forest, et al.,

15
16
17
18
19

ORDER ON SIERRA FOREST
PRODUCTS’ MOTION TO INTERVENE

v.

12
13

1:16-CV-1865 AWI JLT

Defendants,
and
SIERRA FOREST PRODUCTS,
a California Corporation,
Defendant-Intervenor.

20
21

This is a National Environmental Policy Act case filed on December 12, 2016 by Sequoia

22

ForestKeeper and Earth Island Institute (“Plaintiffs”) against the United States Forest Service and

23

various Forest Service employees (“Defendants”) in their official capacities. The case involves

24

logging activities in the Sequoia National Forest, and the potential impact of those activities on the

25

Pacific fisher, the California spotted owl, and the northern goshawk, which have all been classified

26

as a “sensitive species.” The logging projects at issue are the Joey Healthy Forest and Fuels

27

Reduction Project (“Joey Project”) and the Bald Mountain Project (“Bald Mountain”).

28

On August 29, 2017, Sierra Forest Products (“SF Products”) filed a motion to intervene in

1
2

this matter as a defendant. SF Products is a California corporation that has been contracted to

3

perform the logging activities at issue. This case is related to Sequoia ForestKeeper v. LaPrice,

4

Case No. 1:16-CV-00759-AWI-JLT1, in which the Court permitted SF Products to intervene.

5

In its motion to intervene, SF Products states that its contractual rights, its harvest use of the

6

forest, and its economic interest in the timber supply all constitute significantly protectable

7

interests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. However, SF Products contends that its

8

narrower contractual, use, and economic interests are not adequately represented by the Forest

9

Service in this case. Therefore, SF Products contends that it is entitled to intervene under Rule 24.

10

Moreover, SF Products represents that it has conferred with the parties and Plaintiffs and

11

Defendants have taken no position on intervention by SF Products.

12
13

LEGAL STANDARD

14

Rule 24(a)(2) requires a court to permit intervention of right by one who “claims an

15

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated

16

that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to

17

protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

24(a)(2); Wilderness Soc’y v. United States Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (en

19

banc).2 Thus, there is a four-part test that applies to Rule 24(a)(2) motions: “(1) the motion must

20

be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property

21

or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the

22

disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that

23

interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the

24

action.” Wilderness Soc’y, 630 F.3d at 1177; see also Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.,

25
26
27
28

1

This case is now closed.

2

The Court notes that it has discretion to grant permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) to anyone who upon timely
motion has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. However, because
the Court concludes below that SF Products has met the burden of establishing its ability to intervene by right, the
Court will not address permissive intervention.

2

1

830 F.3d 843, 853 (9th Cir. 2016) (same). “Though the applicant bears the burden of establishing

2

these elements, [the Ninth Circuit has] repeatedly instructed that ‘the requirements for intervention

3

are [to be] broadly interpreted in favor of intervention.’” Smith, 830 F.3d at 853 (citation omitted).

4
5
6
7
8

DISCUSSION
Here, SF Products has shown that intervention by right under Rule 24(a) is appropriate.
1.

Timeliness

First, the motion is timely. The “traditional features” of a timely motion to intervene are:

9

“[t]he motion to intervene was made at an early stage of the proceedings, the parties would not

10

[suffer] prejudice from the grant of intervention at that early stage, and intervention would not

11

cause disruption or delay in the proceedings.” Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness

12

Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) While in Citizens the motion to intervene was filed less

13

than 3 months after the complaint was filed, and here the motion to intervene was filed

14

approximately 8 months after the complaint was filed, this case is still in the early stages.

15

Here, no substantive proceedings have occurred and the case management conference has

16

not been scheduled. A scheduling conference was held on May 5, 2017, where the parties

17

acknowledged that the Forest Service was in the process of reassessing the Joey, Bald Mountain,

18

and Summit projects in light of new information and circumstances. Doc. No. 17. In the June 7,

19

2017 Status Report, the Forest Service represented that determinations on whether supplemental

20

NEPA review for the Joey and Bald Mountain Projects is required will not likely occur until

21

spring 2018 and that no logging operations would occur in 2017. Id. With respect to the Summit

22

Project, the Forest Service anticipated that a revised Decision Memorandum would occur no later

23

than July 15, 2017. Id. The Court subsequently ordered that Defendants issue a revised Decision

24

Memorandum for the Summit Project no later than July 15, 2017. Doc. No. 18. On July 10, 2017,

25

the Forest Service lodged the administrative record for the revised Decision Memorandum for

26

Summit. Doc. No. 19. However, to date, the Forest Service has not made any determinations with

27

respect to the Joey or Bald Mountain Projects.

28
3

1
2
3
4

Based on the circumstances outlined above, including the fact that the parties have not
alleged any prejudice, the Court finds that SF Products’ motion to intervene is timely.
2.

Significantly Protectable Interest

SF Products alleges three protectable economic and property interests: “(1) timber sale

5

contract and stewardship contract to implement the projects that are the subject of the litigation;

6

(2) maintaining its timber supply to keep its Terra Bella sawmill operational; and (3) non-

7

economic interests relating to the project area and procedural interests relating to project

8

development.” Motion at 13. At a minimum, SF Products’ existing timber contracts are

9

“significantly protectable” in relation to this litigation, and satisfy this requirement. See Sierra

10

Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1207 (5th Cir. 1994) (reversing a district court’s denial of

11

intervention to timber purchaser associations that had “legally protectable property interest in

12

existing timber contracts”); Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Gould, 2015 WL 6951295, at *2 (E.D.

13

Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (granting motion to intervene and finding that “Sierra Forest Products has

14

contract rights that may be impacted by the resolution of this litigation. Sierra Forest Products is

15

depending on the timber from the government contract . . . .”).

16

3.

Effect of Disposition of this Action

17

“If an absentee would be substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination

18

made in an action, he should, as a general rule, be entitled to intervene.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological

19

Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The third prong often

20

follows as a matter of course if the second prong is met. See, e.g., California ex rel. Lockyer v.

21

United States, 450 F.3d 436, 442 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Having found that appellants have a significant

22

protectable interest, we have little difficulty concluding that the disposition of this case may, as a

23

practical matter, affect it.”). Here, Plaintiffs seeks to halt or restrict logging activities in the

24

relevant areas of Sequoia National Park. See Doc. No. 1. Such relief would either entirely prevent

25

or restrict SF Products from harvesting timber and acting fully on its contracts. Therefore, SF

26

Products’ protectable interest in the timber contracts would be impaired.

27
28
4

1

4.

Whether SF Products’ Interests are Adequately Represented

2

SF Products has met its “minimal burden” by showing that Defendants’ representation of

3

SF Products’ protectable interest may be inadequate. See Forest Conservation Council v. United

4

States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995).3 Defendants’ interest is more focused on

5

“broad public interest” and on complying with applicable laws; Defendants are not primarily

6

focused on the economic interests of SF Products in relation to the contracts at issue. See id. at

7

1499.

8
9

Finally, although not an enumerated consideration by the Ninth Circuit, the Court finds it
significant that none of the existing parties have filed an opposition, and Plaintiffs and Defendants

10

have not refuted SF Products’ representation that they have no opposition to this motion. Given

11

these considerations, the Court will grant SF Products’ motion to intervene.

12
13

ORDER

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

SF Products’ Motion to Intervene under Rule 24(a) (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED; and

16

2.

The Clerk shall add Sierra Forest Products as a defendant to the docket of this case.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 27, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Abrogated on other grounds by Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011).

5