Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson

No. 82-3278 (9th Cir. January 31, 1983)

The court rules that two fishing associations may intervene as of right under FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2) in an environmental group's suit challenging the United States Forest Service's failure to prepare an environmental impact statement for mining activities in Misty Fjords National Monument, Alaska. The court first rules that two appellants meet the first of three prongs of the 24(a)(2) test: timeliness, interest, and jeopardy. Regarding the fourth prong, adequacy of representation, the court rules that plaintiff, an environmental coalition, would not adequately represent appellants' economic interests. The court denies the appeal of a third appellant who was not named in the district court's denial of the motion to intervene.

[Related decisions are reported at 12 ELR 20187, 20188, 20658, 20924, and 13 ELR 20233 — Ed.]

Counsel are listed at 13 ELR 20233.

Before Pregerson, Alarcon, and Nelson, JJ.

[13 ELR 20237]

Per curiam:

Memorandum

The Southeast Alaska Seine Boat Owners and Operators Assoc. and the Alaska Trollers Assoc., Inc. ("appellants") challenge the district court's denial of their motion to intervene in Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson, No. J81-012 CIV (D. Alaska filed Aug. 27, 1981).

We hold that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants' motion to intervene as of right under FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). See Petrol Stops Northwest v. Continental Oil Co., 647 F.2d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 1981) (appellate court will overturn an intervention as of right motion as untimely only if the district court abused its discretion).

A motion to intervene meets the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2) for intervention as of right if: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the movant asserts an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) without intervention the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest; and (4) that interest is inadequately represented by the other parties. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2); Petrol Stops Northwest, 647 F.2d at 1009; County of Fresno v. Andrus, 622 F.2d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1980).

All four requirements for intervention as of right are met in this case. First, we conclude that the motion was timely. The factors to be weighed in determining timeliness are: (1) the stage of the proceedings at which the motion was filed, (2) the reasons for and length of delay, and (3) the prejudice to other parties if intervention is permitted. Petrol Stops Northwest, 647 F.2d at 1009; Alaniz v. Tillie Lewis Foods, 572 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied sub nom. Beaver v. Alaniz, 439 U.S. 837, 99 S. Ct. 123, 58 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1978). Although appellants' motion was not made until six months after the suit was filed, important issues remain to be adjudicated which will substantially affect appellants' interests. These issues include the resolution of the claim that certain statutory provisions have been violated that pertain to the gathering of base line environmental data. Furthermore, allowing appellants to intervene will not prejudice appellees or delay the litigation because appelles [sic] do not seek further discovery or relitigation of any issues already decided.

Second, to obtain intervention as of right appellants must assert an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action. 647 F.2d at 1009. In this case, appellants have a strong economic interest in the quality of the environment and possess valuable information and knowledge to bring to the lawsuit.

Third, appellants must show that the disposition of the action may impair appellants' ability to protect their interests unless intervention is allowed. There is no question that the outcome of the lawsuit will substantially affect the economic interests of appellants. If appellants are not allowed to intervene, they will be unable to bring their particular knowledge and expertise to the issue of whether the statutory provisions regarding the gathering of base line environmental data have been violated.

The fourth consideration is whether the interest of appellants is adequately represented by the other parties. The district court denied intervention to appellants on the basis that appellants' interests are adequately represented by Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. ("SEACC"). We agree that SEACC has shown itself to be a vigorous and capable litigator in this case. Nevertheless, SEACC's interest in maintaining the quality of the environment is primarily for esthetic and recreational reasons, whereas the fishing groups' interest is primarily economic.

All four requirements for intervention are met in this case. We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion of the Southeast Alaska Seine Boat Owners and Operators Assoc. and the Alaska Trollers Assoc., Inc. to intervene as of right under FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a)(2). Consequently, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition. The appeal is dismissed, however, as to the United Southeast Gillnetters, Inc.¹

REVERSED and REMANDED as to the Southeast Alaska Seine Boat Owners and Operators Assoc. and the Alaska Trollers Assoc., Inc.

DISMISSED at to the United Southeast Gillnetters, Inc.

1. The United Southeast Gillnetters, Inc. were listed on the notice of appeal filed May 11, 1982. They did not participate in the motion to intervene in the district court, however, and they are not mentioned in the district court order denying the motion to intervene. Consequently, the appeal of the United Southeast Gillnetters, Inc. is dismissed.