Soto Palmer v. Hobbs

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 SUSAN SOTO PALMER, et al., CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05035-RSL 9 Plaintiffs, v. 10

11 STEVEN HOBBS, et al., ORDER REGARDING SENATOR TORRES’ MOTION TO INTERVENE 12 Defendants,

13 and 14 JOSE TREVINO, et al., Intervenor-Defendants. 15

17 This matter comes before the Court on the “Motion to Intervene of Senator Nikki 18 Torres.” Dkt. # 253. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) provides that, “[o]n timely 19 motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that 20 shares with the main action a common question of law or fact” (emphasis added). 21 22 In determining whether a motion for intervention is timely, a court must consider three factors: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant 23 seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for 24 and length of the delay. In measuring any delay in seeking intervention, the inquiry looks to when the intervenor first became aware that its interests 25 would no longer be adequately protected by the parties. 26 ORDER REGARDING SENATOR TORRES’ MOTION TO 1 2 San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.--N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1100– 3 01 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Callahan v. 4 5 Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., 42 F.4th 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2022)). 6 Senator Torres filed her motion to intervene on December 22, 2023, almost two 7 years after this case was filed, more than a year after she was elected to represent 8 Legislative District 15 (“LD 15”), more than seven months after the Court allowed another 9 10 elected official from a neighboring legislative district to intervene, more than four months 11 after judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs, and two-and-a-half months after the 12 Court established a schedule for presenting alternative remedial proposals. The remedial 13 process was well underway by December 22nd: plaintiffs had already submitted their 14 15 proposed remedial maps, the Court had appointed an expert to assist in the evaluation of 16 the proposals, and the deadline for responding to the remedial proposals had arrived. By 17 the time the motion was ready for consideration, the remedial briefing was complete. 18 Senator Torres argues that the motion was nevertheless timely because, until the State and 19 Intervenors declined to submit their own remedial maps on December 1, 2024, she was 20 21 unaware that her interests would not be adequately protected by the existing parties. 22 Senator Torres did not seek to intervene so that she could present an alternative 23 remedial map, however. She is seemingly content with simply responding to plaintiffs’ 24 remedial proposals, largely reiterating the arguments raised by the Intervenors and their 25 26 expert. Compare Dkt. # 251 and # 252 with Dkt. # 253-1. She makes no attempt to show ORDER REGARDING SENATOR TORRES’ MOTION TO 1 that the Intervenors’ response was somehow inadequate, instead noting that, faced with the 2 likelihood that one of plaintiffs’ remedial maps would be chosen by the Court, she wanted 3 “to speak on her own behalf.” Dkt. # 253-1 at 2. But the issue is whether she timely sought 4 5 to accomplish that goal. The Senator had notice of this lawsuit no later than the time she 6 was served with a subpoena in November 2022. She knew or should have known at that 7 time that plaintiffs were seeking to alter the boundaries of the district that had elected her, 8 and yet she was content until very recently to allow other parties to represent her interests. 9 10 Having failed to put forth her own a remedial proposal and offering no new criticisms of 11 plaintiffs’ proposals, Senator Torres seems to be arguing that the boundaries of LD 15 12 should remain unchanged because she has a legally protectable interest in her existing 13 cadre of voters and/or in avoiding a more difficult reelection campaign.1 Those arguments 14 15 should have been made long ago. 16 17 In the circumstances presented here, the late stage of this proceeding, the length of 18 the delay in seeking to make herself heard, and the lack of justification for the delay 19 militate against granting leave to intervene. Although plaintiffs have not shown that they 20 21 would be prejudiced by the intervention, recognizing, as they do, that Senator Torres’ 22 arguments are virtually identical to those raised by the Intervenors, the motion for leave to 23 24 25 1 The Court previously found that, under Washington law, an elected official has “no right or protectable interest in 26 any particular redistricting plan or boundary lines. The legislative district map must be redrawn after each decennial census: change is part of the process.” Dkt. # 69 at 4. ORDER REGARDING SENATOR TORRES’ MOTION TO 1 intervene was not timely filed and is therefore DENIED. The Court will, however, 2 consider Senator Torres’ submission, Dkt. # 253-1, when selecting a remedy in this case. 3

4 5 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2024.

6 7 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER REGARDING SENATOR TORRES’ MOTION TO