Assoc. of American Railroads v. Randolph

Opinion

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN No. 2:23-cv-01154-DJC-JDP RAILROADS and AMERICAN SHORT LINE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, v. LIANE M. RANDOLPH, in her official capacity as Chair of the California Air Resources Board; STEVEN S. CLIFF, in his official capacity as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board; and ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendants, and EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR COLLECTIVE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, and SIERRA CLUB, Proposed Defendant-Intervenors.

Pending before this Court is Proposed Defendant-Intervenors East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, and Sierra Club’s (“Defendant-Intervenors”) Motion to Intervene filed November 6, 2023. (ECF No. 19.) This Motion is unopposed. (See ECF Nos. 23, 24.) The Court has reviewed the Motion and finds that Defendant-Intervenors satisfy the Ninth Circuit's four-part test for intervention of right pursuant to Rule 24(a). Specifically, the Court finds that (1) the Motion is timely filed, (2) Defendant- Intervenors have significant protectable interests in this litigation, (3) those interests may be impaired by the disposition of this litigation, and (4) the existing Parties may not adequately represent those interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant-Intervenors Motion (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED, subject to the conditions of intervention agreed to by all Parties and Defendant-Intervenors: Proposed Intervenors may not expand the scope of this action. In particular, Proposed Intervenors may not move for relief separately from the State Defendants, but Proposed Intervenors are not limited in the arguments they may make within the scope of this action. Proposed Intervenors may submit their own brief in support of any motion filed by the State Defendants. All filings must be in accordance with this Court's Standing Order and may not be duplicative. Proposed Intervenors and Plaintiffs agree not to pursue discovery between themselves. Defendant-Intervenors proposed Answer (ECF No. 22) is also deemed filed. Dated: _ January 5, 2024 “Dinel CoD tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE