Snowlands Network et al v. United States Forest Service

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/4/2012 GRANTING applicants' 13 Motion to Intervene as a matter of right into all phases of lawsuit, subject to restrictions enumerated above. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SNOWLANDS NETWORK, WINTER
WILDLANDS ALLIANCE, and
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY,

No. 2:11-cv-02921-MCE-DAD

13
PlaintiffS,
14
ORDER1

v.
15
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
20

and
THE INTERNATIONAL SNOWMOBILE
MANUFACTURER’S ASSOCIATION,
et. al.,

21

Applicants for Intervention.

22
----oo0oo---23
24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance,
the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 230(g).
1

1

Plaintiffs are three environmental organizations contending

2

that Defendant United States Forest Service violated the National

3

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., by

4

failing to adequately analyze the Over Snow Vehicle Program’s

5

(“Program”) environmental impact.

6

a Motion to Intervene filed on behalf of several individuals and

7

associations interested in recreational snowmobile use or

8

snowmobile sales (“Applicants”).

9

Presently before the Court is

The Program represents the combined efforts of Defendant and

10

the California Department of Parks and Recreation to facilitate

11

snowmobile use in eleven National Forests (“forests”).

12

Program, Defendant enters into contracts with California and

13

third parties regarding trail grooming and general maintenance.

14

Plaintiffs allege that the Program increases the number of

15

snowmobiles operated in the forests, which harms wildlife and

16

causes additional air pollution and noise.

17

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant must perform a thorough study of

18

the Program’s harmful environmental consequences.

19

Under the

As a result,

Applicants claim that Plaintiffs’ success in this lawsuit

20

could affect the Program’s very existence and, without the

21

Program, Applicants’ lawful interests in snowmobile use and sales

22

would be restricted.

23

its actions in general terms, Applicants request intervention to

24

assert their more narrow interests.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Unlike Defendant, which will likely defend

2

1

Applicants argue that they should be allowed to intervene as a

2

matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).2

3

Alternatively, Applicants seek permissive intervention pursuant

4

to Rule 24(b).

5

lawsuit’s remedy phase, Plaintiffs oppose Applicants’ motion

6

regarding the liability phase, contending that Applicants fail to

7

meet that stage’s intervention requirements.

8

position on the intervention motion itself, but if the Court

9

grants intervention, Defendant seeks several restrictions.

While not disputing intervention into the

Defendant takes no

10
ANALYSIS

11
12

A.

Intervention as a Matter of Right under Rule 24(a)

13
14

An applicant has the right to intervene under Rule 24(a) if

15

1) the intervention request is made in a timely fashion; 2) a

16

“significantly protectable” interest related to the subject

17

matter of the litigation is asserted; 3) disposition of the

18

matter may impair or impede the applicant’s interest in the

19

absence of intervention; and 4) if the applicant’s interest is

20

not adequately represented by existing parties.

21

Network v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105,

22

1113-14 (9th Cir. 2000).

23

Wetlands Action

Until recently, private parties could not intervene as a

24

matter of right in an action alleging NEPA violations on grounds

25

that such parties do not have the requisite significantly

26

protectable interest in NEPA compliance actions.

27
2

28

Unless otherwise noted, all further references to Rule or
Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3

1

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th Cir.

2

2004).

3

private parties from intervention as a matter of right in NEPA

4

lawsuits.

5

1178 (9th Cir. 2011).

6

the importance of fulfilling Rule 24(a)’s requirements and

7

advancing a liberal policy favoring intervention, even in NEPA

8

lawsuits.

However, recent case law no longer categorically bans

Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173,
The Wilderness Society court emphasized

Id. at 1179.

9
1.

10

Applicants have made a timely intervention
request.

11
12
13

“Timeliness is to be determined from all the circumstances”

14

in the court’s “sound discretion.”

NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S.

15

345, 366 (1973).

16

the complaint and a motion to extend the deadline for responsive

17

pleadings.

18

being prejudiced.

The only significant pleadings in this case are

Additionally, the Court cannot foresee other parties
As a result, the request is timely.

19
2.

20

Applicants have a significant protectable interest
related to the subject matter of this litigation.

21
22
23

A proposed intervenor has “a ‘significant protectable

24

interest’ in [the] action if (1) [it asserts] an interest that is

25

protected under some law, and (2) there is a ‘relationship’

26

between [that] legally protected interest and the plaintiff’s

27

claims.”

28

///
4

1

United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 398 (9th Cir.

2

2002) (quoting Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir.

3

1998)).

4

use and enjoyment in the forests, is indeed a protectable

5

interest that should be safeguarded because “[i]t is the policy

6

of the Congress that the national forests are established and

7

shall be administered for outdoor recreation.”

8

Applicants’ efforts to preserve snowmobile access exhibit a nexus

9

between the protected interest and Plaintiffs’ claims.

Here, Applicants contend that their interest, snowmobile

16 U.S.C. § 528.

10

Additionally, Applicants manufacturing and selling snowmobiles

11

and snowmobile parts have an economic interest in continued

12

snowmobile use pursuant to the Program.

13

demonstrate a significant protectable interest.

Thus, Applicants

14
3.

15

Disposition of this matter, may, as a practical

16

matter, impair or impede the Applicants’ ability

17

to protect their interests.

18
19

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, Applicants’ interests may

20

suffer impairment if the Court prevents Applicants’ intervention

21

into this lawsuit’s liability phase.

22

utmost importance, especially because significant decisions may

23

be settled before the remedy stage begins.

24

case, Applicants demonstrate their interest in challenging any

25

change to Defendant’s involvement in the Program.

26

whether environmental impact reports are warranted may very well

27

necessitate allowing intervention into the liability phase.

28

///
5

Each phase can be of the

In this particular

Establishing

1

Courts should allow intervention for the liability phase

2

when the “[intervenor] may be foreclosed from bringing certain

3

. . . arguments if it is not permitted to intervene until the

4

liability [sic] phase.”

5

San Francisco, 2011 WL 2532436 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

6

are successful in the underlying suit and Applicants can only

7

intervene in the remedy phase, Defendant may simply decide to end

8

snowmobile practices altogether rather than perform costly NEPA

9

studies.

Wild Equity Institute v. City of
If Plaintiffs

Additionally, because liability decisions could be

10

different for each forest, thwarting Applicants’ access to the

11

liability phase effectively inhibits their opportunity to contest

12

where the Court will employ each remedy.

13

Furthermore, the Court agrees with Applicants that this case

14

is similar to Wildlands CPR Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service.

15

case, the plaintiffs were also environmental organizations

16

opposing snowmobile use in a national forest.

17

Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 2011 WL 578696 (D. Mont. 2011).

18

too claimed that the defendant Forest Service failed to perform

19

the requisite NEPA analysis.

20

the snowmobile associations’ motion to intervene, without

21

limiting intervention to only the remedy phase.

22

those plaintiffs did not oppose intervention, the court

23

nonetheless could have determined that the snowmobile

24

associations were not entitled to intervention into the liability

25

phase.

26

restrictions on snowmobiling in the forests.

27

///

28

///

Id.

Wildlands CPR
They

Ultimately, the court granted

Id.

Although

Plaintiffs in the case at hand implicitly seek

6

In that

1

As such, their objectives run counter to Applicants’ interests,

2

and this Court, like the Wildlands CPR Inc. court, believes that

3

intervention into the liability phase properly allows Applicants

4

to fully protect their interests.

5

third requirement for intervention as a matter of right.

Therefore, Applicants meet the

6
7
8

4.

Existing parties may not adequately protect
Applicants’ interests.

9
10

Applicants need only show that “the representation of [its]

11

interest ‘may be’ inadequate.”

Trbovich v. United Mine Workers

12

of America, 404 U.S. 528, 538 (1972).

13

consider this minimal burden satisfied when “the interests of

14

[intervenors] were potentially more narrow and parochial than the

15

interests of the public at large.”

16

Competitive Dump Truck Transp. v. Mendonca, 152 F.3d 1184, 1190

17

(9th Cir. 1998).

18

making decisions for the benefit of the entire population.

19

result, Applicants necessarily set forth more specific goals and

20

objectives than the much broader interests that Defendant must

21

take into account.

22

and not Defendant, providing the most tenacious and concentrated

23

defense of their narrow interests.

Furthermore, courts

Californians for Safe &

Defendant is a regulatory agency charged with
As a

One can also reasonably foresee Applicants,

24

With regard to the lawsuit’s liability phase, Applicants

25

persuasively argue that their interests may not be adequately

26

represented by Defendants.

27

remedy phase essentially prevents Applicants from taking part in

28

settlement negotiations.

Only permitting intervention into the

7

1

To this end, Applicants express concern that Defendant is not

2

sufficiently advocating Applicants’ interests in the

3

negotiations.

4

knowledge of the OSV Program and history of volunteering at the

5

forests puts them in a unique position to assist with settlement

6

discussions.

7

intervention into the remedy phase alone may leave their

8

interests unprotected by existing parties.

9

Applicants also claim that their intimate

Accordingly, Applicants demonstrate that

In sum, the Court finds that Applicants satisfy the four

10

requirements for intervention as a matter of right.

Applicants’

11

intervention request is timely and adequately demonstrates a

12

significant protectable interest that could be impeded by this

13

litigation’s disposition.

14

current parties may not sufficiently protect this interest.

15

Furthermore, Applicants should be permitted to intervene not only

16

in the lawsuit’s remedy phase, but the liability phase as well.

Applicants also establish that the

17
B.

18

Permissive Intervention under Rule 24(b)

19
20

District courts have broad discretion to allow permissive

21

intervention.

Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d

22

1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977).

23

matter of right is warranted, the Court need not address

24

Applicants’ alternative argument that permissive intervention is

25

also indicated.

26

///

27

///

28

///

However, because intervention as a

8

C.

1

Defendant’s Proposed Restrictions on Intervention

2
3

Defendant requests that the Court subject Applicants’

4

intervention to four restrictions.

First, Defendant seeks to

5

prevent Applicants from briefing issues already addressed by

6

Defendant.

7

therefore grants the request.

8

to prohibit Applicants from conducting any discovery or

9

supplementing the administrative record.

The Court considers this request appropriate and
Second, Defendant asks the Court

Any request for

10

discovery or to supplement the administrative record should be

11

made in a separate motion.

12

request because it is premature.

13

As such, the Court denies Defendant’s

Third, Defendant calls for each party to bear its own costs

14

and fees.

The Court denies this request to address fees and

15

costs because it is premature.

16

Applicants be assigned separate time limits with respect to oral

17

arguments.

18

therefore grants the request.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Finally, Defendant asks that

The Court considers this request reasonable and

9

CONCLUSION

1
2
3

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Applicants’

4

Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 13) as a matter of right into all

5

phases of the lawsuit, subject to the restrictions enumerated

6

above.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2012

9
10
11

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10