E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation v. County of Alameda

Background

E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation and the other plaintiffs sued the County of Alameda and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. The plaintiffs sought to overturn the Board’s decision not to renew two conditional use permits—government approvals the opinion says were prerequisites to E&B’s continued operation of an oil extraction and production facility on two parcels in Livermore, California.

The Center for Biological Diversity, described in the opinion as an Alameda County-based public interest group focused on environmental protection and combating climate change, asked to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The Center argued that it should be allowed to join the case because it had led the administrative appeal that resulted in the Board’s denial of the permit renewals and because the lawsuit threatened its environmental-conservation interests and the welfare of nearby communities.

Intervention as of Right

The court first considered intervention as of right. This form of intervention requires an applicant to show a significantly protectable interest, possible impairment of that interest if the case proceeds without the applicant, inadequate representation by the existing parties, and a timely motion.

The court found that the Center satisfied the first two requirements. The Center had a significantly protectable interest because it had spearheaded the administrative appeal and sought to uphold the Board’s decision, and because continued oil extraction could affect the interests it asserted. The court also found that the lawsuit could practically impair those interests because a ruling for the plaintiffs could allow oil and gas extraction and production to continue. The court determined that the motion was timely because discovery remained open, no summary-judgment motion had been filed, and intervention would not prejudice the existing parties.

The Center failed, however, to show that the County inadequately represented its interests. The court applied a presumption that the County would adequately represent the Center because both sought the same overall result: defending the Board’s denial of E&B’s permits. The court concluded that the Center’s disagreements with the County mainly concerned litigation strategy, such as whether to file a motion for summary judgment or raise particular defenses, rather than a fundamentally different position about the case. The court therefore denied intervention as of right.

Permissive Intervention

The court separately considered permissive intervention, which allows a nonparty to join a case when its defenses share a common legal or factual question with the main action, subject to the court’s discretion. The court found that the Center met the jurisdictional and common-question requirements and that its motion was timely. Seven of the ten defenses in the Center’s proposed answer also appeared in the County’s answer, and the Center’s other defenses and proposed summary-judgment motion concerned issues related to the plaintiffs’ claims.

Even so, the court exercised its discretion to deny permissive intervention. It found that the Center and the County had aligned interests and that adding the Center as a full party could lead to duplicative briefing and complications in discovery. The court stated that it could allow the Center to brief specific issues if its perspective would contribute productively, but it denied the request for permissive intervention.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion to intervene and terminated Docket Number 41. The order did not resolve the plaintiffs’ claims concerning the legality of the permit denials.