National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

[6] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS Case No.: 19-cv-02324 W (AHG) COUNCIL & AMERICAN FARM [11] BUREAU FEDERATION, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT12 INTERVENORS’ MOTION TO Plaintiffs, INTERVENE [DOC. 16] [13] v. [14] KAREN ROSS, in her official capacity as 15 Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture, et al., [16] Defendants. [18] 19 Before this Court is the unopposed motion by The Humane Society of the United 20 States, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm 21 Sanctuary, Compassion in World Farming USA, and Compassion Over Killing 22 (collectively “Proposed Defendant-Intervenors”) seeking leave to intervene as 23 defendants. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. [Doc. 24 16.] 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, a party may seek to intervene as of right 26 or with leave of the Court. “A motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) 27 is directed to the sound discretion of the district court.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 28 U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096 , 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). Such intervention is available when 1 the applicant seeking to intervene demonstrates “(1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; 2 (2) [that] the motion is timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense, and the main 3 action, have a question of law or a question of fact in common.” Nw. Forest Res. 4 Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825 , 839 (9th Cir. 1996). In reaching the determination of 5 whether the motion is timely, the Court should consider “(1) the stage of the proceeding 6 at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the 7 reason for and length of the delay.” Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Janet Greeson’s 8 A Place For Us, Inc., 62 F.3d 1217 , 1219 (9th Cir. 1995). 9 The Court finds Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have satisfied the three elements 10 necessary to intervene permissively. First, the case before the Court is a federal question, 11 and intervenors do not propose to raise any new claims, alleviating jurisdictional 12 concerns. See Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 844 (9th 13 Cir. 2011). Second, this motion is timely, as it was filed less than two weeks after the 14 Plaintiffs initiated this action, and Plaintiffs’ consent indicates that intervenors would not 15 cause prejudice to other parties. Finally, Proposed Defendant-Intervenors represent to the 16 Court that their “defenses are based solely on legal arguments as to insufficiency of the 17 claims raised by the Plaintiff[s].” (Proposed Def.-Interv. P. & A. [Doc. 16-2], 16:3–4.) 18 This satisfies the liberally construed Rule 24(b)(1)(B) requirement that proposed 19 intervenors share a common issue of law with the main action. See Bureerong v. 20 Uvawas, 167 F.R.D. 83 , 85–86 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 1996). 21 Accordingly, the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ motion is GRANTED. [Doc. 22 16.] The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors shall be permitted to intervene in this action 23 pursuant to the parties’ agreed-upon conditions: (1) intervenors will abide by the same 24 deadlines applicable to the original defendants; (2) intervenors will file jointly; and (3) 25 intervenors will not seek discovery from Plaintiffs or its members, nor will Plaintiffs seek 26 discovery from the proposed intervenors or their members, with the exception of pre-trial 27 disclosure obligations and participation in depositions of witnesses. Defendant28 Intervenors’ lodged Answer, [Doc. 16-1], is deemed filed as of the date of this order. 1 || Defendant-Intervenors are ORDERED to re-file the Answer within forty-eight hours of 2 || the issue of this order. [3] 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 9, 2020 \ 7 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 8 Unted States District Judge