State Of New York v. Pruitt et al, No. 1:2018cv01030 - Document 57 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: re: (25 in 1:18-cv-01048-JPO) MOTION to Intervene filed by National Association of Home Builders, Texas Farm Bureau, Matagorda County Farm Bureau, National Alliance of Forest Owners, Public Lands Council, American Petroleum Instit ute, National Corn Growers Association, American Forest & Paper Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Leading Builders of America, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, National Association of Manufacturers, (29 in 1:18-cv-01030-JPO) MOTION to Intervene filed by National Association of Ho me Builders, Texas Farm Bureau, Matagorda County Farm Bureau, National Alliance of Forest Owners, Public Lands Council, National Corn Growers Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Cattleman's Beef Association, American Forest & P aper Association, National Mining Association, National Pork Producers Council, U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, Leading Builders of America, American Road and Transportati on Builders Association, National Association of Manufacturers. For the foregoing reasons, the motions to intervene are GRANTED. Plaintiffs' opposition briefs to the intervenors' motion to transfer shall be filed within fourteen days from t he date of this order. The intervenors' reply brief, if any, shall be filed within seven days thereafter. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at 18 Civ. 1030 Dkt. No. 29 and 18 Civ. 1048 Dkt. No. 25. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 4/05/2018) (ama)

Download PDF

State Of New York v. Pruitt et al Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, 18-CV-1030 (JPO) -vE. SCOTT PRUITT, et al., Defendants. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, -v- 18-CV-1048 (JPO) OPINION AND ORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants. J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: These two cases concern the definition of the phrase “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. New York v. Pruitt is a suit by a group of states and the District of Columbia against the federal government. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency is a suit by environmental groups against the federal government. Familiarity with the factual background of this litigation is presumed. Before the Court are motions by a consortium of industry groups seeking to intervene as defendants in both cases. For the reasons that follow, the motions are granted. I. Legal Standard There are two ways to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24: mandatory intervention and permissive intervention. Dockets.Justia.com Mandatory intervention requires that the intervenor: “(1) file a timely motion; (2) claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) be so situated that without intervention the disposition of the action may impair that interest; and (4) show that the interest is not already adequately represented by existing parties.” Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Sequa Corp., 250 F.3d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 2001). Permissive intervention is discretionary, and a court may allow intervention if the intervenor “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact” and intervention would not “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B), (b)(3). Among the factors considered by courts are “(1) the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interests, (2) the degree to which those interests are adequately represented by other parties, and (3) whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.” Freydl v. Meringolo, No. 09 Civ. 7196, 2012 WL 1883349, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2012) (quoting Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 11 Civ. 0691, 2011 WL 2150450, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011)). II. Discussion The Court concludes that permissive intervention is appropriate here. First, the plaintiffs in both of these cases do not oppose intervention. 1 Second, the industry groups have demonstrated a serious economic interest in the waters-of-the-United-States rule, as it regulates discharge into waterways. Third, the industry groups are actively litigating the rule in various courts, and the outcome of this case might affect the course of those cases. Fourth, though the 1 Plaintiffs in 18 Civ. 1030 filed a letter stating that they do not oppose intervention. (See 18 Civ. 1030 Dkt. No. 47.) Plaintiffs in 18 Civ. 1048 have not filed an opposition to the motion to intervene. industry groups are on the same side of the federal government here, they are adverse to the federal government in other cases relating to this rule. Thus, the industry groups might not be able to fully rely on the federal government to protect their interests. And fifth, allowing the industry groups to participate would not delay or prejudice the adjudication of these cases. Accordingly, permissive intervention is appropriate here. The Court therefore need not decide whether the standards for mandatory intervention are satisfied. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the motions to intervene are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs to the intervenors’ motion to transfer shall be filed within fourteen days from the date of this order. The intervenors’ reply brief, if any, shall be filed within seven days thereafter. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at 18 Civ. 1030 Dkt. No. 29 and 18 Civ. 1048 Dkt. No. 25. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 5, 2018 New York, New York ____________________________________ J. PAUL OETKEN United States District Judge

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.