Us v Az Order Granting Intervention 04052011
Number of Pages:3
Date Created:April 5, 2011
Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014
Autogenerated text from PDF
Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document 148 Filed 04/05/11 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT ARIZONA United States America, )No. 10-1413-PHX-SRB )Plaintiff, )ORDER vs. The State Arizona; and Janice K.) Brewer, Governor the State Arizona,) her Official Capacity, Defendants. Pending before the Court the Motion the Arizona State Legislature for Intervention Defendant (Mot.) (Doc. 142). BACKGROUND This case concerns the constitutionality Arizonas Senate Bill 1070, modified House Bill 2162 (collectively, S.B. 1070), which had effective date July 29, 2010. Plaintiff moved for, and the Court granted part, preliminary injunction July 2010. (See Docs. 27, 87.) February 2011, Arizona Governor Janice Brewer signed into law Senate Bill 1117 (S.B. 1117), which provides that the Speaker the House Representatives and the President the Senate may direct counsel initiate legal proceeding appear behalf their respective chambers behalf the Legislature any challenge state federal court S.B. 1070. (Mot. Ex. 1.) The Legislature now seeks permission the Court intervene Defendant this action. (Id. 1.) The Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document 148 Filed 04/05/11 Page Court heard oral argument the Legislatures motion April 2011. (Doc. 147.) II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS Federal Rule Civil Procedure 24(b) governs permissive intervention. applicant seeking intervene under Rule 24(b) must demonstrate three things: (1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) [that] the motion timely; and (3) [that] the applicants claim defense, and the main action, have question law question fact common. Cal. Edison Co. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States City L.A., 288 F.3d 391, 403 (9th Cir. 2002)). Where those three elements are satisfied, the district court has broad discretion deciding whether grant deny permissive intervention. Perry Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 898, 905-06 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Kootenai Tribe Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1110 (9th Cir. 2002)). exercising its discretion, court must consider whether intervention will unduly delay prejudice the original parties. Venegas Skaggs, 867 F.2d 527, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Fed. Civ. 24(b)(3). Courts also consider the nature and extent the intervenors interest, their standing raiserelevant legal issues, the legal position they seek advance, and its probablerelation the merits the case[,] whether changes have occurred thelitigation that intervention that was once denied should reexamined,whether the intervenors interests are adequately represented other parties,whether intervention will prolong unduly delay the litigation, and whetherparties seeking intervention will significantly contribute the fulldevelopment the underlying factual issues the suit and the just andequitable adjudication the legal questions presented. Perry, 630 F.3d 905 (quoting Spangler Pasadena Bd. Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977)). The parties not dispute that, under Rule 24(b), there independent ground for jurisdiction over the Legislatures claims defenses, that the Legislatures motion timely, and that the Legislatures claims defenses and the main action have question law question fact common. (See Doc. 144, Pl.s Resp. the Mot. the Ariz. State Leg. for Intervention Def. 3-6). Moreover, considering the current procedural posture the case, permitting the Legislature intervene this time will not unduly delay prejudice the original parties. Rule 24(b) thus allows the Legislatures intervention this action. Using Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRB Document 148 Filed 04/05/11 Page the factors set forth Perry guide and considering the passage S.B. 1117, the Court its discretion finds that the Legislature should permitted intervene Defendant this time. ORDERED granting the Motion the Arizona State Legislature for Intervention Defendant (Doc. 142). DATED this 5th day April, 2011.