Hawaii Wildlife Fund, a Hawaii non- profit corporation; v. County of Maui

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND, a Hawaii non-
profit corporation; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
COUNTY OF MAUI,
Defendant-Appellee,
v.
KALEINANI VIRGINIA DAVIS
KINIMAKA, Proposed Intervenor,
Movant-Appellant,
and
ALFRED SPINNEY KELIIHULUHULU,
Movant.
No. 21-15207
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00198-SOM-KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUN 1 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15207
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Kaleinani Virginia Davis Kinimaka appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying her motion to intervene. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a denial of a motion to intervene under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), and for an abuse of discretion a district court’s
determination of whether or not intervention is timely. Smith v. L.A. Unified Sch.
Dist., 830 F.3d 843, 853 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly denied as untimely Kinimaka’s motion to
intervene due to Kinimaka’s failure to justify the reason for and length of the
delay. See id. at 853-54, 857 (setting forth criteria for granting intervention and
factors for determining whether intervention was timely).
AFFIRMED.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 2 --