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)

Download PDF
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

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?