Hill v. Volkswagen, AG, No. 16-17060 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Clean Air Act did not grant movant an "unconditional right" to intervene in the government's suit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to intervene in the government's Clean Air Act enforcement action against Volkswagen. The panel held that the Act's citizen suit provision did not grant movant an unconditional right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1) where 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(1)(B)'s diligent prosecution bar circumscribed a citizen's right to intervene in an enforcement action under that same provision; a citizen who retained the right to file suit on his own, despite a government enforcement action, had no statutory right to intervene in that action; and the government was not suing to enforce a "standard, limitation, or order" within the meaning of the Act, and thus the diligent prosecution bar did not preclude movant's claims and he was free to bring his own citizen suit. In the alternative, movant's proposed complaints-in-intervention demonstrated that he was not seeking to enforce the provisions invoked by the government, and thus he could have filed his own suit and was not entitled to intervene in the government's action.
Court Description: Intervention / Clean Air Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to intervene, filed by a disgruntled owner of a 2012 Volkswagen, in the federal government’s Clean Air Act enforcement action against Volkswagen. The government’s suit arose from the car manufacturer’s installation in some of its cars of “defeat devices” that allowed Volkswagen to cheat on emissions tests. The parties reached a final proposed consent decree, and the government filed its enforcement action with the court. The panel held that the Clean Air Act’s citizen suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7604, did not grant the movant an “unconditional right” to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). First, the panel held that § 7604(b)(1)(B)’s diligent prosecution bar circumscribed a citizen’s right to intervene in an enforcement action under that same provision. The panel further held that a citizen who retained the right to file suit on his own, despite a government enforcement action, had no statutory right to intervene in that action. Second, the panel held that the government was not suing to enforce a “standard, limitation, or order” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and therefore the diligent prosecution bar did not preclude movant’s claims and he was free to bring his own citizen suit. Accordingly, the movant had no statutory right to intervene in the government enforcement action 4 IN RE VOLKSWAGEN LITIGATION under the Clean Air Act. Alternatively, the panel held that movant’s proposed complaints-in-intervention demonstrated that he was not seeking to enforce the provisions invoked by the government, and therefore he could have filed his own suit and was not entitled to intervene in the government’s action. The panel held that movant could not intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) because he had no standing for the relief he sought.
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.