Friends of Del Norte v. California Department of Transportation

Background

The Del Norte Local Transportation Commission (DNLTC) sought to intervene in the dispute over a proposed project to modify U.S. Route 199 and State Route 197 in Del Norte County. Plaintiffs opposed intervention, and defendants took no position. DNLTC also asked for permission to file a reply after the deadline; that request was unopposed.

Ruling on the late reply

The court granted DNLTC’s request for an extension to file its reply.

Intervention analysis

DNLTC sought intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). That rule requires the applicant to show that the request is timely, that the applicant has a significant protectable interest related to the case, that the case could impair the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, and that the existing parties may not adequately represent it.

The court found the request timely, although only barely. DNLTC filed more than a year and a half after the case began, but the case had been stayed from April 2018 through June 2019 for settlement discussions. The court also noted that the request came before any hearings or rulings on substantive matters. Because the intervention would be limited, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ concerns about new issues, delay, and added complexity were reduced.

The court found that DNLTC had a protectable interest because it had actively participated in the administrative process and had worked for more than a decade to obtain funding for the 197/199 Safe STAA Access Project. The court also found that the case’s outcome could determine whether the highway project could proceed.

Finally, the court found that DNLTC’s interests might not be adequately represented by the existing parties. Although DNLTC and defendants shared the goal of completing the highway project, plaintiffs’ complaint included factual allegations about the project area that DNLTC was uniquely positioned to address. The court also recognized that a government body’s interests may be narrower and more local than the interests of the public generally, which can overcome the usual presumption that the government adequately represents those interests.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to intervene on the limited grounds proposed by plaintiffs and accepted by DNLTC. DNLTC’s participation is limited to reviewing the administrative record and supplementing it if extra-record evidence is warranted. Because the court granted intervention as of right, it did not consider DNLTC’s alternative request for permissive intervention. The order did not decide the underlying legality of the highway project.