Oregon Cattlemen's Association v. U.s. Environmental Protection Agency;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OREGON CATTLEMEN'S
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER, Proposed
Intervenor,
Movant-Appellant.
No. 19-35564
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00564-AC
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-35564
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 of 2 --