Re: Dkt. No. 33

Re: Dkt. No. 33

ORDER GRANTING STATE OF WYOMING'S UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO INTERVENE

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.

On March 16, 2018, the State of Wyoming ("Wyoming") filed unopposed motions to intervene in the related above-captioned cases.1 Dkt. No. 33; see also Dkt. Nos. 36 (Defendants' statement of non-opposition); 40 (Plaintiff's statement of non-opposition); Dkt. Nos. 33, 37, 42 (same), Case No. 18-cv-00524-HSG. At a hearing on May 1, 2018, the parties confirmed their non-opposition to the motions. See Dkt. No. 69. Based on the submissions and the parties' statements, the Court granted the motions at that proceeding. Id. The Court issues this order to explain its reasoning in greater detail for the record.

I. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) governs intervention as of right. The rule is "broadly interpreted in favor of intervention," and requires a movant to show that

Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 2006)). Courts deciding motions to intervene as of right are "guided primarily by practical considerations, not technical distinctions." See id. (quoting Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also U.S. v. City of L.A., 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that "equitable considerations" guide determination of motions to intervene as of right) (citation omitted).

The Court is satisfied that Wyoming is entitled to intervene as a matter of right. Wyoming timely filed its applications to intervene in the litigations' early stages. See Mot. at 5-6. Wyoming has also shown that it has a significant protectable interest in its regulatory program governing hydraulic fracturing, which these actions could implicate. See Mot. at 6-8. Specifically, Wyoming claims that the Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM") final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands ("the HF Rule") has "undermined the effectiveness" of its complex regulatory scheme. Id. at 7. As to the third factor for intervention, Wyoming shows that Plaintiffs' requested relief—that is, a finding that Defendants' repeal of the HF Rule is unlawful — would impair Wyoming's interest by causing regulatory uncertainty and a loss of related revenues and investments. Finally, the Court is persuaded that the existing parties may not adequately represent Wyoming's interests. On the one hand, Wyoming seeks a substantive outcome that is contrary to Plaintiffs' requested relief. On the other, Wyoming, as a state, has interests that are discreet from and potentially adverse to the federal agencies and representatives that comprise Defendants in these cases. Mot. at 9-10.

II. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.