Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado grants the Nebraska Public Power District’s motion to intervene in a petition for review of agency action. The court finds the motion timely, determines that the District has a legally protectable interest in the challenged permit, and concludes that existing government respondents may not adequately represent that interest. The court orders the caption amended to identify the District as an intervenor-respondent.
Holdings
- The District's motion to intervene was timely because it was filed ten days after the action commenced, promptly after the District learned of the litigation, and no party identified prejudice from the timing.
- The District had a legal interest in the litigation because it held the permit Petitioners sought to set aside and vacate, and resolution of the action could impair that interest.
- The District met the minimal burden of showing that its interests might not be adequately represented by the existing parties because the District and the governmental Respondents had different mandates and Respondents took no position on intervention or on defending the District's particular interests.
- Nebraska Public Power District satisfied the requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), and its motion to intervene was granted.
Questions Presented
- Whether Nebraska Public Power District satisfied the requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).
- Whether the District's motion to intervene was timely.
- Whether the District had a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest that could be impaired by disposition of the action and might not be adequately represented by the existing parties.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- W. Energy All. v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Coal. of Ariz./N.M. Counties for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dep’t of Interior, 100 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1996)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…