The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 ----oo0oo----
11
12 CORTINA INTEGRATED WASTE No. 2:24-cv-3014 WBS AC
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
13
Plaintiff,
14 ORDER RE: MOTION TO INTERVENE
v. BY KLETSEL DEHE WINTUN NATION
15 OF THE CORTINA RANCHERIA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
16 INTERIOR; UNITED STATES BUREAU
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; BRYAN
17 NEWLAND, in his official
capacity as Assistant Secretary
18 in the U.S. Department of the
Interior-Indian Affairs; BRYAN
19 MERCIER, in his official
capacity as Director of the
20 Bureau of Indian Affairs in the
U.S. Department of the Interior;
21 AMY DUTSCHKE, in her official
capacity as Regional Director
22 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Pacific Region; and INTERIOR
23 BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS,
24 Defendants.
25
26 ----oo0oo----
27 Plaintiff Cortina Integrated Waste Management, Inc.
28 filed the instant action for declaratory and equitable relief
1 alleging that the federal government defendants unlawfully
2 terminated its lease. (Docket No. 1.) The Kletsel Dehe Wintun
3 Nation of the Cortina Rancheria (“Tribe”) moves to intervene.
4 (Docket No. 12.) Plaintiff and defendants do not oppose the
5 Tribe’s intervention.1 (See Docket Nos. 14-15.)
6 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), the
7 court must grant a timely motion to intervene as a matter of
8 right where the movant “claims an interest relating to the
9 property or transaction that is the subject of the action and is
10 so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
11 matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its
12 interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that
13 interest.” See also Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630
14 F.3d 1173, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (same).
15 The Tribe’s motion is timely since the court has not
16 heard any dispositive motions in the case. See Hoopa Valley
17 Tribe v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 648 F. Supp. 3d 1196, 1200-
18 01 (E.D. Cal. 2022) (concluding a tribe’s motion to intervene was
19 timely because it was filed “well before any substantive matters
20 had been heard or decided”).
21 Moreover, the Tribe provides evidence showing that it
22 is plaintiff’s counterparty in the lease at issue (see
23 Docket No. 12-1 at 101-05), which establishes the type of
24 interest contemplated by Rule 24(a)(2). See Backcountry Against
25 Dumps v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, No. 20-CV-2343 JLS (DEB),
26
1 Because the motion is unopposed and the court does not
27 see that it would be assisted by oral argument, the hearing on
March 17, 2025 is vacated and the court takes the motion under
28 submission on the moving papers. See L.R. 230(g).
eee eee OI ED EE
1 2021 WL 2433942, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2021). If the Tribe
2 did not intervene, its interest in the lease may be impaired by
3 | the disposition of the instant matter. See id.
4 Finally, the Tribe asserts without contradiction its
5 concern that the current parties will not adequately protect its
6 interest in the lease because the federal government does not
7 share the Tribe’s reasons for defending the lease in question.
8 | See No Casino In Plymouth v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n,
9 No. 2:18-cv-1398 TLN CKD, 2022 WL 1489498, at *10-11 (E.D. Cal.
10 May 11, 2022), aff’d on other grounds, No. 22-15756, 2023 WL
11 4646113, at *1-2 (9th Cir. July 20, 2023), cert. denied, 144 □□□
12 Ct. 1347 (2024). Accordingly, the requirements for intervention
13 under Rule 24(a) (2) are met.
14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Tribe’s motion to
15 intervene (Docket No. 12) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
16 The Tribe shall file its proposed answer (Docket No. 12-2) on the
17 court’s docket within 14 days.
18 | Dated: February 27, 2025 bette 2d. □□
19 WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28