DISTRICT 4 LODGE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS LOCAL LODGE 207 et al v. RAIMONDO et al
ORDER RESERVING FINAL RESOLUTION OF MOTON TO INTERVENE; GRANTING MOVANTS LEAVE TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13 Motion to Intervene By JUDGE LANCE E. WALKER. (CJD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DISTRICT 4 LODGE OF THE
OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 207,
f/k/a, IAMAW MAINE LOBSTERING
UNION – LOCAL 207, et al.,
GINA M. RAIMONDO, in her official
capacity as Secretary, United States
Department of Commerce et al.,
ORDER RESERVING FINAL RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO INTERVENE;
GRANTING MOVANTS LEAVE TO OPPOSE
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, and Defenders
of Wildlife request expedited consideration of their Motion to Intervene (ECF 13) so that
they may participate and be heard on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction, which is itself set for expedited briefing and hearing.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) states:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who ... claims
an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the
action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter
impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing
parties adequately represent that interest.
Tracking the language of the Rule, a movant under Rule 24 must demonstrate that
four requirements are met in order to intervene as of right: (1) the motion to inteverne must
be timely; (2) the movant must demonstrate a significant protectable interest relating to the
property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the disposition of the action
may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest; and
(4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest. See In re
Efron, 746 F.3d 30, 34 (1st Cir. 2014). If the movant falls short in some respect in its
showing, the Court may grant the movant leave to intervene who has “a claim or defense
that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1)(B) (so-called “Permissive Intervention”).
The Motion to Intervene is without question timely.
2. Interest in the Transaction
The Rule Plaintiffs challenge in this action is the product of litigation and rulemaking proceedings in which Movants have long been engaged. Their interest in the
“transaction” now before the Court is well established.
3. Impairment of Interest
Given the Movants’ interest in the transaction and their shared wildlife conservation
perspective, the Court’s imposition of the requested injunctive relief would impair
4. Adequate Representation
When a movant “seeks to intervene as a defendant alongside a government entity”
and the litigation in question challenges adminstative action, there exists a rebuttable
presumption that the government will adequately defend its action. Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v.
Rosenfelt, 988 F.3d 556, 561 (1st Cir. 2021). Here, I find on the record presented by
Movants that it is likely the rebuttable presumption can be overcome. The rule making
process under consideration in this litigation is the product of scientific analysis but also
compromise. On one reading of the history of this case, we arrive where we are today
because of prodding by conservation-minded members of the public rather than vigorous
administrative oversight. Although I have no reason to think that the governmental
defendants will not defend the component of their Final Rule being challenged in this
litigation, the LMA 1 Restricted Area is controversial, controversy has a tendency to soften
the backbone of the political classes, and litigation has some tendency to produce
negotiated resolutions not entirely in keeping with the letter of the law. Given these
realities, I find it likely that Movants’ interest is not adequately represented by Defendants.
Given the need for expedited determination, and given Movants’ showing,
Movants’ Motion to Intervene is PROVISIONALLY GRANTED, subject to the following
Movants are HEREBY GRANTED LEAVE to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, subject to the same deadline
established for Defendant’s response. Following the issuance of my order on Plaintiffs’
Motion, Plaintiffs and Defendants will have 21 days to respond to Movants’ Motion to
Intervene; Movants will have 14 days to reply. In the event no response is filed in
opposition to Movants’ Motion to Intervene, the Motion will be granted and Movants will
be allowed to intervene as of right as defendants in this matter.
Dated this 6th day of October, 2021.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?