Donor Network West v. Kennedy

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00140
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 DONOR NETWORK WEST, Case No. 3:25-cv-00140-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE 6 v. (ECF Nos. 38, 40, 41) 7 ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health 8 and Human Services;

9 STEPHANIE CARLTON, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the 10 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 12 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & 13 MEDICAID SERVICES, Defendants. 14 15 16 Nonparty Renown Health seeks to intervene in this matter and participate 17 telephonically in the hearing set for Wednesday, March 26, 2025, at 1:00pm. 18 On timely motion, a court must allow intervention by a movant who claims an 19 interest that may be impaired by resolution of the case, where current parties 20 inadequately represent the movant’s interests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Wilderness 21 Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). 22 Renown has satisfied the showing required for mandatory intervention. 23 Renown’s motion is timely, when considering the early stage of the litigation and 24 the accelerated briefing schedule requested by Plaintiff. (See ECF Nos. 13, 19, 25 36.) Renown has a protectable interest in this case because this case is about a 26 waiver that Defendants granted to Renown, (see ECF No. 1-1), which Plaintiff 27 seeks to dissolve. Additionally, the outcome of this action could impair Renown’s 28 ability to protect its interest—if, for instance, the Court finds that Defendants 1 || illegally granted the waiver and blocks it from taking effect. 2 Finally, Renown’s interests in the outcome of this litigation sufficiently 3 || differ from Defendants’. For this factor, courts consider the interests of the parties 4 || present, including whether a “would-be intervenor would offer any necessary 5 ||} elements to the proceedings that other parties would neglect.” Sw. Ctr. for 6 || Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 822 (9th Cir. 2001). Renown’s stakes 7 || in the waiver underlying this case, including the timing of the waiver 8 || implementation and “operational contractual burdens” involving Renown’s 9 || switch to a different organ procurement organization, (see ECF No. 41 at 6), 10 || satisfy this element. See Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 268 F.3d at 823 (finding 11 || that “interests of government and the private sector may diverge” and that private 12 || party would “offer important elements to proceedings that the existing parties 13 || would likely neglect”). This case ultimately concerns a waiver applied for by 14 || Renown, for reasons known by Renown, so Renown should be able to present its 15 || position. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, the Court grants Renown’s Emergency Motion to Intervene 18 || (ECF No. 41) and finds its earlier motion moot (ECF No. 38). 19 The Court grants Renown’s Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically (ECF 20 || No. 40) at the hearing set for Wednesday, March 26, 2025, at 1:00pm. 21 22 DATED THIS 24th day of March, 2025. 23 Ana pod den 24 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28