United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
MURPHY COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation; and MURPHY TIMBER INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Plaintiffs,
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; KEVIN HAUGRUD, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Interior; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; and U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendants.
D. CLARKE, United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Intervene (#5)
filed by Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, Klamath-Siskiyou
Wildlands Center, Oregon Wild, and the Wilderness Society
(collectively, "intervenors"). Intervenors seek
intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(a)(2), or alternatively, seek permissive
intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2).
For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED, and
interveners are hereby joined as defendants to this case.
originally filed this action on February 17, 2017.
Plaintiffs' action challenges Presidential Proclamation
No. 9564, 82 Fed. Reg. 6, 145 (Jan. 12, 2017). Proclamation
No. 9564 expanded the boundaries of the Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument by approximately 48, 000 acres and was
issued pursuant to the President's authority under the
Antiquities Act of 1906. Over 80 percent of the expanded
acreage was, prior to the expansion, Oregon and California
Lands ("O&C" Lands). Plaintiffs contend the
Proclamation unlawfully changed its designation and
accompanying statutory purpose from "permanent timber
production to the park-like preservation status of a national
monument." Compl., at 2, ¶ 2 [ECF No. 1.].
Plaintiffs argue this designation violated the O&C Act
and exceeded the scope of the President's authority under
the Antiquities Act.
are non-profit environmental organizations who have been
actively involved in the movement to protect, preserve, and
expand the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Group members
have, among other things, spoken with former administration
officials, public officials, and federal agencies about the
planned expansion; engaged in the public comment process as
it pertained to the planned expansion; and collaborated with
and engaged stakeholders in an effort to better protect the
land that is now part of the expanded Monument. See,
e.g., Willis Decl. ¶¶ 4-18; Sexton Decl.
¶ 26; Vaile Decl. ¶¶ 9-14; Flarris Decl.
¶ 6; Culver Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. Intervenors argue
that their organizations have expended a great amount of time
and resources to advance the expansion of the
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and if plaintiffs'
prayer for relief is granted, they will suffer an
do not oppose intervenors' motion. Mot. to Intervene, at
1 (ECF No. 5.). Federal defendants take no position, but
"note that a change in Administration is not a factor
the court should consider in ruling on a motion to intervene.
. . ." Fed. Defs.' Response to Mot. to Intervene, at
2 [ECF No. 11.].
Intervention as of Right
24(a)(2) provides in relevant part that:
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
is to be liberally construed in favor of the party seeking
intervention, Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078,
1083 (9th Cir. 2003), because '"a liberal policy in
favor of intervention serves both efficient resolution of
issues and broadened access to the courts.'"
Wilderness Soc'y. v. U.S. Forest Service, 630
F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v.
City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397-98 (9th Cir.
2002)); see also In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos
Human Rights Litig, 536 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir.2008)
("the requirements for intervention are broadly
interpreted in favor of intervention").
analyzing a motion to intervene as of right under Rule
24(a)(2), this Court applies a four-part test:
(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim a
"significantly protectable" interest relating to
the property or transaction which is the subject of the
action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the
disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or
impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the
applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by
the parties to the action.
Wilderness Soc'y, 630 F.3d at 1177 (internal
citations and quotations omitted). In applying this test,
"courts 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." Sw. Ctr. ...