OREGON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION V. USEPA, No. 19-35564 (9th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OREGON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-35564 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00564-AC Plaintiff-Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER, Proposed Intervenor, Movant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2019** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s unopposed motion to submit this case on the briefs (Docket Entry No. 25) is therefore granted. Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Columbia Riverkeeper appeals from the district court’s order denying its motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we review de novo the district court’s decision to deny intervention as of right. See Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir. 2011). We reverse and remand. Columbia Riverkeeper has a practical interest in the 2015 agency rule challenged in this action. That practical interest is not adequately represented by the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association or the United States Environmental Protection Agency and may be impaired by the disposition of this action. See, e.g., United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919-21 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the test for determining intervention as of right). We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to grant Columbia Riverkeeper’s motion to intervene as of right. 1 REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. 1 We need not and do not reach Columbia Riverkeeper’s arguments regarding permissive intervention. 2 19-35564

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.