Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Environment et al v. United States Bureau of Land Management et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granting 15 Motion to Intervene. (tah)

Case 1:20-cv-00673-KG-JHR Document 25 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DINÉ CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING
OUR ENVIRONMENT, SAN JUAN
CITIZENS ALLIANCE, WILDEARTH
GUARDIANS, and SIERRA CLUB,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Civ. No. 20-673 KG/JHR

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DAVID BERNHARDT,
in his official capacity as United States
Secretary of the Interior, WILLIAM PERRY
PENDLEY, in his official capacity as
Acting Director of the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, and TIM SPISAK, in his
official capacity as the State Director for the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management in New
Mexico,
Federal Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Review of Agency Action (Petition)
challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) issuance of 30 leases for oil and gas
development on lands administered by the BLM’s Rio Puerco Field Office. (Doc. 1). On
September 25, 2020, EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG), the owner of the 30 oil and gas leases at issue
in this lawsuit, filed the instant “Motion to Intervene by EOG Resources, Inc.” (Motion to
Intervene). (Doc. 15). The Motion to Intervene states that neither Plaintiffs nor Federal
Defendants take a position on the Motion to Intervene. Id. at 1. Having considered the Motion
to Intervene and the applicable law, the Court grants the Motion to Intervene.

Case 1:20-cv-00673-KG-JHR Document 25 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 5

EOG seeks to intervene as a matter of right and, in the alternative, permissively. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24 sets forth the criteria for intervention as a matter of right and for
permissive intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) (permitting intervention as of right on
timely motion to anyone 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”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) (allowing permissive intervention on timely
motion to anyone who “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact”). EOG also contends that it has standing to intervene, including standing
under Article III.
A. Article III Standing
“Article III standing requires a litigant to show: (1) an injury in fact that is (a) concrete
and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) the injury can likely be redressed by a
favorable decision.” Kane Cty. v. United States, 928 F.3d 877, 888 (10th Cir. 2019) (citation).
Here, if the Court grants the Petition and vacates the oil and gas leases, EOG cannot exercise its
right to develop its oil and gas interests on the subject BLM land. The inability to exercise that
right constitutes a concrete, particularized, and actual injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the
Petition. Furthermore, if the Court denies the Petition and does not vacate the 30 oil and gas
leases, that decision will redress any injury to EOG’s interests in the oil and gas leases that
would have occurred had Plaintiffs prevailed on their Petition. For the above reasons, the Court
determines that EOG has Article III standing to intervene.

2

Case 1:20-cv-00673-KG-JHR Document 25 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 5

B. Intervention as of Right
EOG may intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) if: “(1) the application is timely; (2)
the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the
action; (3) the applicant’s interest may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded; and (4) the
applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.” Utah Ass’n of Counties v.
Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). Notably, the Tenth
Circuit follows “a somewhat liberal line in allowing intervention,” and “[t]he factors of Rule
24(a)(2) are intended to capture the circumstances in which the practical effect on the
prospective intervenor justifies its participation in the litigation, and those factors are not rigid,
technical requirements.” WildEarth Guardians v. Nat’l Park Serv., 604 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th
Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).
The Court determines that EOG can intervene as a matter of right for the following
reasons. First, the Court finds that the Motion to Intervene is timely because the case is in its
early stages and an intervention will not prejudice any party. See Utah Ass’n of Counties, 255
F.3d at 1250 (stating that court assesses timeliness of motion to intervene “in light of all the
circumstances, including the length of time since the applicant knew of his interest in the case,
prejudice to the existing parties, prejudice to the applicant, and the existence of any unusual
circumstances”) (citation omitted). Second, EOG has a direct and substantial interest in the oil
and gas leases which are the subject of this lawsuit. Third, a decision to vacate the oil and gas
leases will impair or impede EOG’s interest in the oil and gas leases. Finally, the Federal
Defendants do not adequately represent EOG’s interest in the oil and gas leases because the
Federal Defendant’s broad national interests in those leases do not necessarily coincide with
EOG’s narrow private interest in protecting its financial investment in the leases and EOG’s

3

Case 1:20-cv-00673-KG-JHR Document 25 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 5

desire to develop the leases for financial gain. See Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep't of
Transp., 295 F.3d 1111, 1117 (10th Cir. 2002) (acknowledging that Tenth Circuit has
“repeatedly pointed out” that “government's prospective task of protecting ‘not only the interest
of the public but also the private interest of the petitioners in intervention’ is ‘on its face
impossible’ and creates the kind of conflict that ‘satisfies the minimal burden of showing
inadequacy of representation’”) (citation omitted).
C. Permissive Intervention
EOG may permissively intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) if EOG “(1) makes a timely
application, (2) has a separate claim or defense that has a common question of law or fact with
the main action, and (3) does not unduly delay or prejudice the rights of original parties.” Utah
ex rel. Utah State Dep't of Health v. Kennecott Corp., 232 F.R.D. 392, 398 (D. Utah 2005).
“[A]nother determinable factor is ‘whether the interveners will significantly contribute to the full
development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication
of the legal questions presented.’” Id. (citation omitted).
The Court, likewise, determines that EOG can intervene permissively. First, as stated
above, the motion to intervene is timely. Second, EOG’s response to Plaintiffs’ claims will raise
questions of law or fact in common with the Petition. Third, as determined above, intervention
will not delay or prejudice the rights of Plaintiffs or Federal Defendants. Finally, EOG’s
knowledge of the challenged leasing decisions and the land at issue will contribute to the Court’s
understanding of the underlying factual issues and to a just and equitable adjudication of the
Petition.

4

Case 1:20-cv-00673-KG-JHR Document 25 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 5

IT IS ORDERED that:
1. the Motion to Intervene by EOG Resources, Inc. (Doc. 15) is granted; and
2. EOG Resources, Inc. is allowed to intervene in this lawsuit.

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5