United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 163

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/4/2018 DENYING 59 Motion to Intervene by County of Orange and Sandra Hutchens. County of Orange and Sandra Hutchens may file an amici curiae brief by 6/12/2018. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

14

2:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,

15
16

No.

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

17

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO INTERVENE BY COUNTY OF ORANGE
AND SANDRA HUTCHENS

Defendants.

18
The County of Orange (“Orange County”) and Sandra Hutchins

19
20

(“Hutchins”), Sheriff-Coroner for the County of Orange,

21

(collectively “Proposed Intervenors”) filed a Motion to Intervene

22

in this matter pending between the United States and the State of

23

California.

24

intervene as plaintiffs.

25

No. 148.

26

expressed no opinion as to intervention as of right.

27

154.

28

///

ECF No. 59.

Orange County and Hutchins seeks to
California opposes intervention.

ECF

The United States supports permissive intervention, but
ECF No.

For the reasons set forth below, Proposed Intervenors’

1

1

motion is DENIED. 1

2
3

I.

4

BACKGROUND

The United States filed suit against the State of

5

California, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., and Attorney General

6

Xavier Becerra (collectively “California”) on March 6, 2018,

7

seeking a declaration invalidating, and a preliminary and

8

permanent injunction enjoining, certain parts of Senate Bill 54

9

(“SB 54”), Assembly Bill 450 (“AB 450”), and Assembly Bill 103

10

(“AB 103”).

11

for preliminary injunction.

12

opposition to that motion and a motion to dismiss on May 4, 2018.

13

ECF Nos. 74 & 77.

14

parties have litigated discovery matters, undertaken expedited

15

discovery, and participated in multiple discovery conferences.

16

ECF Nos. 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 84, 95, 100, 118, & 157.

17

filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of

18

California, which the Court denied on March 29, 2018.

19

18 & 39.

20

twenty-three amicus and amici curiae briefs have been filed.

21

Nos. 43, 44, 48, 55–57, 104, 112, & 126–140.

22

Compl., ECF No. 1.

It concurrently filed a motion

ECF No. 2.

California filed its

Since the United States filed suit, the

California

ECF Nos.

By consent of the parties or the Court’s permission,
ECF

Proposed Intervenors filed their motion for leave to

23

intervene on April 20, 2018.

ECF No. 59.

They seek to intervene

24

in order to obtain a declaration invalidating, and orders

25

preliminarily and permanently enjoining, certain provisions of SB

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for June 5, 2018.
2

1

54 and AB 103.

2

concern Orange County’s interests as a political subdivision of

3

California charged with upholding both state and federal law in

4

execution of its law enforcement and public safety functions.

5

Id.

Mot. at 1.

Their grounds for intervention

6
7

II.

INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT

8

A.

Legal Standard

9

Proposed Intervenors contend that they are entitled to

10

intervene in this lawsuit as of right.

11

court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an

12

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the

13

subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the

14

action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s

15

ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties

16

adequately represent that interest.”

17

Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a four part test to determine

18

whether such a motion should be granted:

19
20
21
22

“On timely motion, the

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).

(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must
claim a “significantly protectable” interest relating
to the property or transaction which is the subject of
the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that
the disposition of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede its ability to protect that
interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be
inadequately represented by the parties to the action.

23
24

Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th

25

Cir. 2011) (quoting Sierra Club v. U.S. E.P.A., 995 F.2d 1478,

26

1481 (9th Cir. 1993)).

27

requirements is fatal to the application, and [the Court] need

28

not reach the remaining elements if one of the elements is not

“Failure to satisfy any one of the

3

1

satisfied.”

2

947, 950 (9th Cir. 2009).

Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d

3

In determining the adequacy of representation, district

4

courts consider “whether the interest of a present party is such

5

that it will undoubtedly make all the intervenor’s arguments;

6

whether the present party is capable and willing to make such

7

arguments; and whether the intervenor would offer any necessary

8

elements to the proceedings that other parties would neglect.”

9

People of State of Cal. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d

10

775, 778 (9th Cir. 1986).

“The ‘most important factor’ to

11

determine whether a proposed intervenor is adequately represented

12

by a present party to the action is ‘how the [intervenor’s]

13

interest compares with the interests of existing parties.’”

14

Perry, 587 F.3d at 950–51 (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d

15

1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003)).

16

when the applicant and an existing party have the same ultimate

17

objective.

18

Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1305 (9th Cir. 1997)

19

(“Under well-settled precedent in this circuit, where an

20

applicant for intervention and an existing party have the same

21

ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation

22

arises.”).

23

representation when the existing party is a government body

24

acting on behalf of its constituency.

25

(“There is also an assumption of adequacy when the government is

26

acting on behalf of a constituency that it represents.”).

27

each presumption, the applicant must make a compelling showing—

28

and in the case of government representation, a very compelling

A presumption of adequacy arises

Perry, 587 F.3d at 951; see also League of United

Additionally, courts presume adequacy of

4

Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086

With

1

showing—that its interests are not adequately represented in

2

order to establish its right to intervene. Id.

3

B.

Application

4

California argues that a heightened standard applies to

5

Proposed Intervenors’ motion because Proposed Intervenors share

6

the “same ultimate objective” as the United States.

7

6.

8

representation “in situations[,] such as here, where the federal

9

government purports to advance a congressional directive.”

10

Def. Opp. at

It further argues that the Court may presume adequate

Id.

Proposed Intervenors argue that the United States does not

11

adequately represent its interests because its “interests in the

12

case are in regard to its status as a local government entity and

13

county law enforcement officer, and Proposed Intervenors are

14

specifically joining the case to address the constitutional and

15

public safety rights of their citizens.”

16

Additionally, they argue that they offer a materially different

17

perspective on the case because they have to deal with the actual

18

application of the state laws on the local level.

19

distinctions are enough, they contend, to meet the “minimal

20

showing” required to establish inadequate representation.

21

13.

22

Mot. at 12.

Id.

These

Id. at

Although applicants for intervention generally need only

23

make a “minimal showing” of inadequate representation, see Tahoe

24

Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d at 778, the burden is higher in

25

this case.

26

same “ultimate objective”: a judicial declaration that the

27

challenged laws are invalid and orders enjoining their

28

enforcement.

Proposed Intervenors and the United States share the

This fact is made evident by Proposed Intervenors’
5

1

Complaint, which states the exact same claims and the same

2

prayers for relief as the United States’ Complaint (with the

3

omission of claims related to AB 450).

4

Complaint, ECF No. 59-2, at 16–17, with Complaint, ECF No. 1, 16–

5

18.

6

like the United States’ Complaint, similarly asserts that the

7

challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause.

8

their “ultimate objective” is identical, Proposed Intervenors

9

must make a compelling showing of inadequate representation in

10
11

Compare Proposed

The Proposed Complaint contains no additional claims and,

Because

order to establish their right to intervene.
Proposed Intervenors have not met their burden.

They have

12

not identified any meritorious arguments that the United States

13

will fail to assert or will be precluded from making.

14

California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States, 450 F.3d 436, 444

15

(9th Cir. 2006) (“In order to make a ‘very compelling showing’ of

16

the government’s inadequacy, the proposed intervenor must

17

demonstrate a likelihood that the government will abandon or

18

concede a potentially meritorious reading of the statute.”).

19

Additionally, Proposed Intervenors have not identified any

20

necessary elements to the proceedings they could offer that the

21

United States would neglect.

22

impact the challenged laws have on Orange County’s operations,

23

the County’s experience offers little aid in resolving the purely

24

legal question at the center of this dispute: whether the

25

challenged laws violate the Supremacy Clause.

26

Hain Celestial Grp., 783 F.3d 753, 757 (9th Cir. 2015)

27

(describing preemption as a “purely legal question”).

28

Distinctly, nearly all of the cases Proposed Intervenors cite in

See

While the Court understands the

6

See Astiana v.

1

support of “inadequate representation” did not involve Supremacy

2

Clause claims. 2

3

for the Court to conclude the United States will not capably

4

litigate its perceived sovereign interests and thus adequately

5

represent Proposed Intervenors’ interests in turn.

6

from Religion Found., Inc., 644 F.3d at 841 (“This presumption of

7

adequacy is nowhere more applicable than in a case where the

8

Department of Justice deploys its formidable resources to defend

9

the constitutionality of a congressional enactment.”) (citations

10

See Mot. 12–13, Rep. at 2–4.

There is no basis

See Freedom

omitted).

11

Given the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court

12

finds the United States will adequately represent Proposed

13

Intervenors’ interests in this litigation.

14

to satisfy any one of the requirements is fatal to the

15

application,” the Court need not, and does not, address the

16

remaining elements.

17

Intervenors’ motion to intervene as of right is denied.

Because the “failure

See Perry, 587 F.3d at 950.

Proposed

18
19

III.

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION

20

A.

Legal Standard

21

Alternatively, Proposed Intervenors ask the Court to grant

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The only cited case with a Supremacy Clause claim is of little
instructive value because the decision contains nearly no
analysis of the applicant’s right to intervene and predates
recent authority applying the presumptions of adequacy. See
Wash. State Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. Spellman,
684 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Rule 24 traditionally has
received a liberal construction in favor of applicants for
intervention. DWW, as the public interest group that sponsored
the initiative, was entitled to intervention as a matter of right
under Rule 24(a).”).
7

1

them permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 24(b).

3

to intervene who is given a conditional right to intervene by a

4

federal statute; or has a claim or defense that shares with the

5

main action a common question of law or fact.”

6

24(b).

7

applicant for intervention shows (1) independent grounds for

8

jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the applicant’s

9

claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or

“On timely motion, the court may permit anyone

Fed. R. Civ. P.

“[A] court may grant permissive intervention where the

10

a question of fact in common.”

11

Glickman, 82 F.3d 825,839 (9th Cir. 1996).

12

Nw. Forest Res. Council v.

“Even if an applicant satisfies those threshold

13

requirements, the district court has discretion to deny

14

permissive intervention.”

15

412 (9th Cir. 1998).

16

whether the movant’s ‘interests are adequately represented by

17

existing parties.’”

18

Cir. 1989) aff’d sub nom. Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82

19

(1990).

20

B.

21

The Court is compelled to deny Proposed Intervenors’ motion

Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405,

In doing so, the Court may again “evaluate

Venegas v. Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 530 (9th

Application

22

for permissive intervention for the same reasons Proposed

23

Intervenors may not intervene as of right.

24

shown the United States will not adequately represent their

25

interests in this litigation.

26

They simply have not

The Court also finds the addition of Proposed Intervenors to

27

this lawsuit will contribute little to the resolution of the

28

claims.

This lawsuit fundamentally concerns the relationship
8

1

between two sovereign entities: the United States and the State

2

of California.

3

questions.

4

as a “purely legal question”).

5

Intervenors could offer the Court on the legal issues could be

6

addressed through an amici curiae brief.

7

554 F.2d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 1977) (while litigation might benefit

8

from proposed intervenor’s knowledge of law and facts, “such

9

benefits might be obtained by an amicus brief rather than bought

As noted above, the claims turn on legal

See Astiana, 783 F.3d at 757 (describing preemption
Any assistance Proposed

See Blake v. Pallan,

10

with the price of intervention”).

11

California, allowing Proposed Intervenors to intervene at this

12

time might encourage other non-interested parties to seek

13

intervention as well as add a level of complexity to the

14

proceedings that would be unnecessary to properly resolve the

15

issues in this case.

As noted by the State of

The Court agrees.

16
17
18

IV.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Proposed Intervenors’

19

Motion to Intervene is DENIED.

20

amici curiae brief by Tuesday, June 12, 2018.

21
22

Proposed Intervenors may file an

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2018

23
24
25
26
27
28
9