Roberto Ito Farm, Inc. v. County of Maui, No. 15-15246 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter the County approved a county ordinance prohibiting the growth, testing, and cultivation of genetically engineered crops, plaintiffs filed suit to enjoin and invalidate the Ordinance. Two public-interest citizens’ groups, Shaka and MOM Hui, filed motions to intervene. The magistrate judge granted Shaka’s motion to intervene but denied MOM Hui’s, finding that Shaka would adequately represent MOM Hui’s interests. The district court held that the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to rule on MOM Hui’s motion to intervene; any appeal from the magistrate judge’s order needed to be taken to the Ninth Circuit because the magistrate judge, having obtained the consent of the parties, had authority to enter a final decision under 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1); and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear MOM Hui’s appeal. The court agreed with the Seventh Circuit that a prospective intervenor is not a "party" as the term is used in section 636(c)(1). The court concluded that, because the magistrate judge had the consent of the parties and did not need the consent of MOM Hui, the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to rule on MOM Hui’s motion to intervene. Effectively presiding as a district judge over the suit, the court explained that the magistrate judge’s intervention order became immediately appealable to this court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Procedure. The panel affirmed the district court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from a magistrate judge’s order denying intervention. The panel held that prospective intervenors are not “parties” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and a magistrate judge who has the consent of the named parties to the suit may rule on a prospective intervenor’s motion to intervene without the prospective intervenor’s consent. The panel held that in this case, because the magistrate judge had the consent of the parties and did not need the consent of the proposed intervenor, the magistrate judge had jurisdiction to rule on the motion to intervene and the magistrate judge’s order denying intervention became immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit, not to the district court.
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.