Winter Wildlands Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association's Motion to Intervene for Purposes of Appeal (Dkt. 71 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO

WINTER WILDLANDS ALLIANCE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-cv-00586-REB
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

vs.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
Defendant,
and
BLUERIBBON COALITION, INC., IDAHO
STATE SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
and AMERICAN COUNCIL OF SNOWMOBILE
ASSOCIATIONS, INC.,
Defendant-Intervenors,
and
INTERNATIONAL SNOWMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Applicant Defendant-Intervenor.

Currently before the Court is International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association,
Inc.’s Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 71), which seeks permissive intervention pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(b).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
This case involves Winter Wildlands Alliance’s (“Plaintiff”) challenge to Subpart C of
the 2005 Travel Management Rule. (See Memorandum Decision and Order, Dkt. 63, at pp. 211.) On March 29, 2013, this Court entered a Memorandum Decision and Order which held that
the 2005 Travel Management Rule was contrary to Executive Order 11644, granted Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment, denied Defendant U.S. Forest Service’s cross-motion for
summary judgment, and denied the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by Intervenors1
Idaho State Snowmobile Association, Inc., American Council of Snowmobile Associations, Inc.,
and BlueRibbon Coalition (collectively, “Intervenors”). Judgment was entered in favor of
Plaintiff and the Forest Service was directed to issue a new travel management rule within 180
days. (Judgment, Dkt. 64.)
On June 3, 2013, the Court issued an Amended Judgment and Order granting the Forest
Service’s request to alter the judgment to allow additional time for the Forest Service to comply
with the Court’s order. (See Dkts. 65, 72.) On July 19, 2013, the Intervenors filed a notice of
appeal. The Forest Service did not appeal the Court’s order.
On July 18, 2013, the applicant intervenor, International Snowmobile Manufacturers
Association, Inc. filed the pending Motion to Intervene for Purposes of Appeal (Dkt. 71).
MOTION TO INTERVENE
International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (“ISMA”) seeks to intervene
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). ISMA contends that, as an association of manufacturers of

1

The present Intervenors, Idaho State Snowmobile Association, Inc., American Council
of Snowmobile Association, Inc., and BlueRibbon Coalition, Inc. were allowed to intervene
upon stipulation. (See Dkts. 15, 25, 30 and 31).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

snowmobiles and snowmobile parts, the use of its members’ products will be affected by the
ultimate disposition of the matter, i.e., fewer National Forest areas will be open to
snowmobiling, resulting in fewer sales and rentals of snowmobiles in areas near the National
Forests and reduced demand for snowmobiles and snowmobile parts.
A.

Standard of Law for Motion to Intervene
Permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B) may be

granted where the applicant “shows (1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is
timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or a
question of fact in common.” Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 838 (9th Cir.
1996). When a proposed intervenor has met those requirements, “the court may also consider
other factors in the exercise of discretion, including the nature and extent of the intervenors’
interest and whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties.”
Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2009). Rule 24(b)(3) also
requires that the court “consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). The Court is granted broad
discretion in this determination. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011).
“A post-judgment motion to intervene is timely if filed within the time allowed for the
filing of an appeal.” Yniguez v. State of Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 734 (9th Cir. 1991). In this case,
where the “United States or its officers or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by
any party within 60 days” after the judgment is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
Here, the Amended Judgment and Order was entered June 3, 2013. ISMA’s Motion to
Intervene was filed on July 18, 2013, well within the 60-day period. The Court then considers

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

whether to exercise its discretion to permit intervention under the applicable standards.
Ordinarily, that analysis might well begin and end with the requirement that ISMA demonstrate
independent jurisdictional grounds to join the case. However, the Ninth Circuit does not require
such a showing by “proposed intervenors in federal-question cases when the proposed intervenor
is not raising new claims.” Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Geithner 644 F.3d 836, 844
(9th Cir. 2011). This case is grounded in federal question jurisdiction and ISMA avers that it
does not seek to bring any counterclaims or cross-claims. Accordingly, ISMA is not required to
show an independent jurisdictional ground as a prerequisite to joining the lawsuit.
Various other factors arguably also militate in favor of allowing intervention. Neither the
Plaintiff nor the Forest Service argues against the proposition that ISMA’s proposed intervention
is premised upon common questions of law or fact as the main action. ISMA disavows any
intention to seek to raise new arguments and its positions upon the interpretation of the 2005
Travel Management Rule necessarily implicate the same arguments raised by the Forest Service
and the Intervenors in their cross-motions for summary judgment.
Further, the Court may consider the possibility of undue delay and prejudice to the
original parties. There is unlikely any undue delay from intervention by ISMA, as ISMA says it
consents to be bound by the existing record, that it would work with other the existing
Intervenors in taking a unified position, and that it would not seek to extend any deadlines. In
such a setting, the likelihood of prejudice to any other party seems remote.
Other factors, however, weigh more strongly against allowing ISMA to intervene. To
begin, it is apparent that ISMA’s interests mirror the interests of the existing Intervenors. ISMA
is an association of manufacturers of snowmobiles and snowmobile parts. Declaration of Ed

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Klim, Dkt. 73, ¶¶ 4-5. ISMA acknowledges that its “perspective will be similar to those of the
existing intervenors . . .” ISMA’s Motion to Intervene, Dkt. 72, p. 5. Even if ISMA’s goals
could be argued to be somewhat distinct, rather than precisely identical, to the existing
Intervenors, any differences that might exist are nonetheless consistent with the interests
advanced by the existing Intervenors. For instance, even if the BlueRibbon Coalition has a
particular interest in maintaining motorized access to the public lands (and including more than
just snowmobiles), the interests of ISMA’s member manufacturers to keep public lands open to
snowmobiles for the benefit of their industry is not in any way at odds with the goals of the
BlueRibbon Coalition. The same is true for the particular interest of the members of the Idaho
State Snowmobile Association (“ISSA”)and the American Council of Snowmobile Associations
(“ACSA”). In sum, the already existing Intervenors represent a broad spectrum of local,
regional, and national organizations that represent snowmobile users, clubs, dealers, distributors,
and resort owners. Affidavit of Sandra Mitchell, Dkt. 18, ¶ 3; Affidavit of Christine Jourdain,
Dkt. 19, ¶ 9; Declaration of Kay Lloyd, Dkt. 4, ¶ 3. Those Intervenors seek to prevent,
wherever possible, the closure of National Forest areas to snowmobile use. Lloyd Decl., ¶¶ 5-6;
Mitchell Aff., ¶¶ 6-8; Jourdain Aff., ¶¶ 6-11. That is exactly the result sought by ISMA, because
ISMA contends that any such closures will result in fewer sales and rentals of snowmobiles,
reduced demand for snowmobiles and snowmobile parts, and financial harm.
Accordingly, the existing Intervenors have materially identical interests in promoting
continued snowmobile use in the National Forests. Both the existing Intervenors and ISMA
share the same ultimate objective – to uphold the 2005 Travel Management Rule. ISMA’s main
argument for allowing intervention is essentially that there is no reason not to allow intervention,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

because nothing will change the existing legal and factual landscape of the case and it will
contribute resources and experience to the appeal.2 These are not sufficiently compelling
reasons to allow intervention at this time, in this case. The existing Intervenors have filed a
notice of appeal in this case and the record developed to date indicates that they can adequately
represent their own interests, which parallel ISMA’s interests. Their counsel have been involved
with the case from the outset and are familiar with the factual and legal issues. Therefore,
because the goals of ISMA and the existing Intervenors are identical in every material respect
and because the existing Intervenors can adequately represent those interests, the Court will
deny ISMA’s motion for permissive intervention.3
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that International Snowmobile Manufacturers
Association’s Motion to Intervene for Purposes of Appeal (Dkt. 71) is DENIED.

DATED: October 25, 2013

Honorable Ronald E. Bush
U. S. Magistrate Judge

2

Indeed, ISMA says that it will participate in the appeal behind the scenes, even if it is
not granted the right to intervene as a party. See ISMA’s Motion to Intervene, Dkt. 72, p. 6.
3

The Plaintiff and the Forest Service also argue that ISMA must, but cannot, demonstrate
standing to support its request to intervene. Because the Court denies this motion on other
grounds, it is not necessary to decide the question of standing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6