Hartford v. Ferguson

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 6, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05364
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 LAWRENCE HARTFORD; DOUGLAS CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05364-RJB MITCHELL; BRETT BASS; SPORTING 7 SYSTEMS VANCOUVER, INC.; ORDER GRANTING ALLIANCE SECOND AMENDMENT FOR GUN RESPONSIBILITY’S 8 FOUNDATION, INC.; AND FIREARMS MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A POLICY COALITION, INC., DEFENDANT 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 BOB FERGUSON, in his official capacity as Washington State Attorney General; 12 JOHN R. BATISTE, in his official capacity as Chief of the Washington State Patrol; 13 JOHN GESE, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Kitsap County; CLAYTON 14 MYERS, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Kittitas County; JOHN HORCH, in his 15 official capacity as Sheriff for Clark County; ADAM FORTNOY, in his official 16 capacity as Sherriff for Snohomish County; CHAD M. ENRIGHT, in his official 17 capacity as County Prosecutor for Kitsap County; GREGORY L. ZEMPEL, in his 18 official capacity as County Prosecutor for Kittitas County; TONY GOLIK, in his 19 official capacity as County Prosecutor for Clark County, JASON CUMMINGS, in his 20 official capacity as County Prosecutor for Snohomish County, 21 Defendants. 22 This matter comes before the Court on Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s (“Alliance”) 23 Motion to Intervene as Defendant. Dkt. 25. The Court has considered the pleadings filed 24 regarding the motion and the remaining file. 1 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On April 25, 2023, Substitute House Bill 1240 (“HB 1240”) was enacted in the State of 3 Washington. 2023 Wash. Sess. Laws, ch. 162, § 1. HB 1240 prohibits the manufacture, 4 importation, distribution or sale of “assault weapons” with certain exceptions. Id. Alliance is a 5 public interest group that spent more than seven years working to enact the restrictions on assault

6 weapons contained in HB 1240. Dkt. 26-1 at 4. It asserts that it assisted in policy research and 7 development, organized public support, communicated with legislators, and organized testimony 8 in support of HB 1240. Id. 9 The Plaintiffs, individual gun owners who wish to purchase weapons on the list, a gun 10 dealer, and two associations of gun owners dedicated to Second Amendment advocacy, filed this 11 case on April 25, 2023 alleging that HB 1240 violates their Second Amendment rights, as 12 applied to enactments of Washington through the Fourteenth Amendment. Dkt. 1. On May 5, 13 2023, the Plaintiffs moved for an order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of HB 1240. Dkt. 14 10.

15 On May 11, 2023, Alliance filed the instant motion to intervene as a defendant in this 16 case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 24(b)(1), permissive intervention, or, in the alternative, 17 under Rule 24(a), intervention as a matter of right. Dkt. 25. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion 18 (Dkt. 33) and Alliance filed a reply (Dkt. 51). The motion is ripe for review. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 A. STANDARD 21 Rule 24(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that “the court may permit anyone to intervene 22 who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or 23 fact.” Rule 24(b)(3) goes on to provide that “[i]n exercising its discretion, the court must 24 1 consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original 2 parties’ rights.” In the Ninth Circuit, “permissive intervention requires (1) an independent 3 ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between 4 the movant's claim or defense and the main action.” Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. 5 Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2011).

6 B. ALLIANCE’S INTERVENTION 7 Alliance’s motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1) (Dkt. 25) should 8 be granted. There are no grounds from which to conclude that Alliance’s intervention will 9 “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Rule 24(b)(3). 10 1. Independent Ground for Jurisdiction 11 “[T]he independent jurisdictional grounds requirement does not apply to proposed 12 intervenors in federal-question cases when the proposed intervenor is not raising new claims.” 13 Freedom from Religion Found. at 844. The Plaintiffs claim that this Court has federal question 14 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. 1 at 3. Alliance does not seek to assert any new state

15 law claims in this case. Dkt. 25. This factor does not apply. 16 2. Timeliness 17 In assessing whether a motion to intervene is timely, courts consider “the stage of the 18 proceeding, prejudice to other parties, and the reason for and length of the delay.” Babbitt at 19 1397. 20 Alliance’s motion to intervene is timely. It was filed at the very beginning of the case - a 21 little over two weeks after the case was filed. There is no showing of prejudice to the other 22 parties. At the time the motion was filed no substantive rulings had issued and no discovery had 23 occurred. There was no delay in filing the motion. 24 1 3. Common Question of Law and Fact 2 Alliance has demonstrated that there is a common question of law and fact between its 3 defenses and the main action. The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of HB 1240. 4 Alliance’s proposed defense of the law addresses the same issues raised by the Plaintiffs’ 5 challenge. This Court has previously held that Alliance raised sufficient common questions of

6 law and fact in cases where it sought to intervene in order to defend the constitutionality of 7 measures it helped draft and support. Sullivan v. Ferguson, 2022 WL 10428165 at *5 (W.D. 8 Wash. Oct. 18, 2022); Nw Sch. Of Safety v. Ferguson, 2015 WL 311522 at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9 18, 2022). 10 4. Conclusion 11 Alliance’s motion to intervene as a defendant under Rule 24(b)(1) should be granted. 12 Alliance’s knowledge of the relevant subject matter will provide a helpful perspective that is not 13 necessarily represented by other Defendants. Sullivan at 11; Cal. Dump Truck Owners Ass’n v. 14 Nichols, 275 F.R.D. 303, 309 (E.D. Cal. 2001). The caption should be amended to include it.

15 A public interest group like Alliance is entitled “as a matter of right to intervene in an 16 action challenging the legality of a measure it has supported” if it meets the other requirements 17 of Rule 24(a). Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1995). The 18 Court need not reach this alternative ground for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a), 19 however, because permissive intervention should be granted. 20 III. ORDER 21 It is ORDERED that: 22  Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s Motion to Intervene as Defendant (Dkt. 25) IS 23 GRANTED; and 24 1  The caption IS AMENDED to include Alliance for Gun Responsibility as a 2 Defendant. 3 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 4 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 5 Dated this 6th day of June, 2023.

6 A

7 ROBERT J. BRYAN 8 United States District Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24