The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN No. 2:23-cv-01154-DJC-JDP
RAILROADS and AMERICAN SHORT LINE
12 AND REGIONAL RAILROAD
ASSOCIATION,
13 ORDER
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
LIANE M. RANDOLPH, in her official
16 capacity as Chair of the California Air
Resources Board; STEVEN S. CLIFF, in his
17 official capacity as Executive Officer of the
California Air Resources Board; and ROB
18 BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the State of California,
19
Defendants,
20
and
21
EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR
22 ENVIRONMENTA L JUSTICE, PEOPLE’S
COLLECTIVE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
23 JUSTICE, and SIERRA CLUB,
24 Proposed Defendant-Intervenors.
25
26
27
28
1 Pending before this Court is Proposed Defendant-Intervenors East Yard
2 | Communities for Environmental Justice, People’s Collective for Environmental Justice,
3 | and Sierra Club’s (“Defendant-Intervenors”) Motion to Intervene filed November 6,
4 | 2023. (ECF No. 19.) This Motion is unopposed. (See ECF Nos. 23, 24.)
5 The Court has reviewed the Motion and finds that Defendant-Intervenors satisfy
6 || the Ninth Circuit's four-part test for intervention of right pursuant to Rule 24(a).
7 | Specifically, the Court finds that (1) the Motion is timely filed, (2) Defendant-
8 | Intervenors have significant protectable interests in this litigation, (3) those interests
9 || may be impaired by the disposition of this litigation, and (4) the existing Parties may
10 | not adequately represent those interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Wilderness Soc’y v.
11 | U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).
12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant-Intervenors Motion (ECF
13 | No. 19) is GRANTED, subject to the conditions of intervention agreed to by all Parties
14 | and Defendant-Intervenors:
15 Proposed Intervenors may not expand the scope of this
16 action. In particular, Proposed Intervenors may not move for
relief separately from the State Defendants, but Proposed
17 Intervenors are not limited in the arguments they may make
within the scope of this action. Proposed Intervenors may
18 submit their own brief in support of any motion filed by the
19 State Defendants. All filings must be in accordance with this
Court's Standing Order and may not be duplicative.
20 Proposed Intervenors and Plaintiffs agree not to pursue
discovery between themselves.
22 | Defendant-Intervenors proposed Answer (ECF No. 22) is also deemed filed.
23
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 | Dated: _ January 5, 2024 “Dinel CoD tto—
26 Hon. Daniel alabretta
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28