Opinion
Case No. CV-01-529-E-BLW.
February 7, 2002
ORDER
The Court has before it a motion to intervene filed by Pleasantview Livestock Grazing Association, Inc. The plaintiffs oppose the motion. In this suit, plaintiffs claim that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) devised and implemented grazing standards on the Pleasantview allotment in violation of federal law. Pleasantview is the holder of the sole grazing permit on that allotment.
With regard to the liability portion of the plaintiffs' claim, Pleasantview's interests are adequately protected by the BLM. With regard to remedies, however, the interests of Pleasantview and the BLM differ in that any decision restricting grazing would have a direct economic impact on Pleasantview. Under similar circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the denial of intervention in the liability phase and the grant of intervention in the remedies phase. See Churchill County v. Babbitt, 150 F.3d 1072, 1083 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court will follow that authority, and permit Pleasantview to intervene during the remedies phase (assuming the plaintiffs' prevail in the liability phase). Accordingly,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to intervene filed by Pleasantview Livestock Grazing Association, Inc. (docket no. 5) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is granted to the extent it seeks intervention in the remedies phase of this litigation should plaintiffs prevail in the liabilities phase. It is denied in all other respects.