Sequoia ForestKeeper et al v. Carlson et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER GRANTING 20 Motion to Intervene signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/16/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER and EARTH
ISLAND INSTITUTE,

10
11
12

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE (ECF No. 20)

Plaintiffs,

8
9

1:18-cv-00331-LJO-MJS

v.
ANN CARLSON, in her official capacity as the
acting Forest Supervisor of the Sequoia
National Forest; and the UNITED STATES
FOREST SERVICE,
Defendants.

13
14

The Court has received and reviewed the motion to intervene filed by Sierra Forest Products

15 (“SFP”). ECF No. 20. Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants take no position on the motion. Accordingly,
16 the Court concludes the matter is suitable for decision on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
17

For good cause shown, SFP’s motion to intervene as of right as a defendant in this action under

18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) is GRANTED. SFP’s motion is timely; among other things, the fact that SFP holds
19 the contract to implement the Spear Creek Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project represents a
20 significant protectable interest in the subject matter of the litigation; disposition of the case would
21 impact SFP’s protectable interests; and, while the interests of SFP and Federal Defendants overlap, they
22 are not identical, as Federal Defendants must represent broad public interests beyond the predominantly
23
24
25
1

1

economic interests of SFP.1 SFP’s participation in the case is conditioned on its making every effort to

2

avoid duplicative briefing. Duplicative briefing will be disregarded and/or stricken.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

July 16, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1

The Court made the same finding in Earth Island Institute v. Elliott, Case No. 1:17-cv-01320-LJO-SAB, a challenge to the

25 Bull Run Roadside Hazard Tree Mitigation Project, and granted SFP’s motion to intervene in that case as well.
2