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

Filing 43

ORDER granting in part (35) Motion to Intervene by Safari Club/NRA. The Court denies the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), and grants the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 12/11/2017. 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

DEC 11 2017
Clerk, l:J.S District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula

CV 17-89-M-DLC

CROW INDIAN TRIBE; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; etal.,

(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; SAFARI CLUB
INTERNATIONAL and NATIONAL
RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Intervenors.
The Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association of America
("Safari Club/NRA") have filed a motion for leave to intervene in the
above-captioned case as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, permissively under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). (Doc. 35.)
Plaintiffs Crow Indian Tribe, et al. oppose the motion, and Federal Defendants and
Defendant-Intervenor State of Wyoming have stated that they take no position on
the motion.
-1-

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
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)).
-2-

While Safari Club/NRA moved to intervene in a timely manner, the Court
finds that they do not significant protectable interest that may be impaired as a
result of this litigation, but rather have a generalized interest in the litigation.
(Doc. 3 7 at 3.) Their generalized interest represents the pro-hunting perspective of
parties who would partake in the hunting of grizzly bears and other game in the
area at issue. Safari Club/NRA argue that because none of the Plaintiffs support
the hunting of grizzly bears, they should be allowed to intervene as of right.
However, Plaintiffs Crow Indian Tribe, et al. contend that they do not have
independent standing for this reason. For support, Plaintiffs rely on other ESA
delisting cases that allowed Safari Club/NRA to only permissively intervene.
(Doc. 3 7 at 2 (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar, 672 F .3d 1170 (9th
Cir. 2012); Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, 565 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008);

Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Servheen, 2008 WL 11348731 (D. Mont. Apr.
25, 2008).) The Court concludes that Safari Club/NRA's interest in hunting
opportunities for their members is not a "significant protectable interest" relating
to the delisting of the GYE grizzly bear.
Safari Club/NRA also request permissive intervention. "On timely motion,
the court may permit anyone 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.
-3-

24(b )(1 )(B). In deciding whether to permit intervention under Rule 24(b), the
court must consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
Safari Club/NRA's defenses have common questions of law with the main action,
namely whether Federal Defendants complied with the ESA in delisting the GYE
grizzly bear. Additionally, intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the
original parties. Safari Club/NRA defend the interests of a small section of the
regulated public-grizzly bear hunters-and those arguments will not be represented
by the other parties in this case. Thus, the Court grants permissive intervention.
IT IS ORDERED that the Safari Club/NRA's motion to intervene (Doc. 35)
is GRANTED IN PART. The Court denies the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(a), and grants the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). All parties,
including Safari Club/NRA, shall comply with the Court's December 5, 2017
Order regarding consolidation. The Court notes that it may allow Safari
Club/NRA to submit independent briefing on pro-hunting issues if those issues are
not adequately addressed in joint briefing. However, the Court will make that
determination at the scheduling status conference to be held after the
Administrative Record is finalized.

-4-

DATED this

~day ofDecembe
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Juage
United States District Court

-5-