United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
KLAMATH SISKIYOU WILDLANDS CENTER, OREGON WILD, et al, Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant, and MURPHY COMPANY Intervenor Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
D. CLARKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
case comes before the Court on Murphy Company's Motion to
Intervene (#5). For the reasons below, the motion to
intervene as a defendant is GRANTED.
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 Serv., 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
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. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 820
(9th Cir. 2001).
assessing timeliness, the Court weighs three factors:
"(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant
seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and
(3) the reason for and length of the delay." Orange
Cty. v. Air Cal, 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986)
(citing United States v. State of Oregon, 745 F.2d
550, 552 (9th Cir. 1984)).
interveners filed their motion shortly after the Complaint
was filed and before defendant U.S. Bureau of Land Management
("BLM") filed its responsive pleading. Hence,
intervener's motion was made at an early stage in the
proceedings, and the parties will suffer no prejudice,
disruption, or delay from the grant of intervention. See
Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass
'n, 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that
a motion to intervene as of right was timely and would not
cause prejudice, disruption, or delay in the proceedings ...