Crow Indian Tribe et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 110

ORDER granting (108) Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 2/26/2018. Associated Cases: 9:17-cv-00089-DLC, 9:17-cv-00117-DLC, 9:17-cv-00118-DLC, 9:17-cv-00119-DLC, 9:17-cv-00123-DLC (ASG)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

CROW INDIAN TRIBE; et al.,

FEB

26 2018

Clerk, U.S Courts
District Of Montana
Missoula Division

CV 17-89-M-DLC

Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

(Consolidated with Case Nos.
CV 17-117-M-DLC,
CV 17-118-M-DLC,
CV 17-119-M-DLC,
and CV 17-123-M-DLC)

Federal-Defendants,
and
STATE OF WYOMING; STATE OF
IDAHO; and STATE OF MONTANA,
Defendant-Intervenors.
The State of Montana has filed a motion for leave to intervene in the
above-captioned case as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Ci vii Procedure
24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, permissively under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). (See
CV-17-89-M-DLC, Doc. 108.) Plaintiffs and Defendants have stated that they
take no position on the motion.
A litigant seeking to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) bears the burden
of establishing that the following criteria are satisfied: ( 1) the motion is timely;
(2) the applicant has a"significantly protectable" interest relating to the property or
-1-

transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that the
disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the
applicant's ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant's interest is not
adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit. Wilderness Soc. v.
US. Forest Service, 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Sierra Club v.
EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1481 (9th Cir. 1993)); DBSl/TRJ IV Ltd. Partnership v.
United States, 465 F.3d 1031, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006).
In evaluating these factors, "[c]ourts are to take all well-pleaded,
nonconclusory allegations in the motion to intervene, the proposed complaint or
answer in intervention, and declarations supporting the motion as true absent
sham, frivolity or other objections." Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v.
Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820 (9th Cir. 2001). While "the party seeking to intervene
bears the burden of showing those four elements are met, 'the requirements for
intervention are broadly interpreted in favor of intervention."' Prete v. Bradbury,
438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Alisa! Water Corp.,
370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004)).
All four criteria for intervention as of right are satisfied in this case. This
case is in its earliest stages, and there is no indication that allowing Montana to
intervene will prejudice the existing parties. The State of Montana moved to
-2-

intervene without delay, well before the administrative record is filed and any
substantive issues are considered by the Court. As detailed in its supporting brief,
Montana has significant protectable interests that may be impaired as a result of
this litigation, which challenges the Federal Defendants' decision to remove the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear from the list of threatened and
endangered species. (CV-17-89-M-DLC, Doc. 109 at 10-13.) Finally, Montana
has shown that the Federal Defendants cannot adequately represent its interests in
this action. Montana is in a unique position to explain to the Court the rationale
underlying Montana's grizzly bear management plans and how those plans are
integral to ensuring the long-term viability of grizzly bears in the GYE. (Id. at
14-16.) Because Montana satisfies the criteria for intervention as of right and no
existing party argues otherwise,
IT IS ORDERED that the State of Montana's motion to intervene as a
matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) (CV-17-89-M-DLC, Doc.
108) is GRANTED. All parties, including State of Montana, shall comply with
the Court's December 5, 2017 Order regarding consolidation.
DATED this

1-.ffJ -kaay of February, 2

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-3-