Assoc. of American Railroads v. Randolph ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN No. 2:23-cv-01154-DJC-JDP RAILROADS and AMERICAN SHORT LINE 12 AND REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION, 13 ORDER Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 LIANE M. RANDOLPH, in her official 16 capacity as Chair of the California Air Resources Board; STEVEN S. CLIFF, in his 17 official capacity as Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board; and ROB 18 BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, 19 Defendants, 20 and 21 EAST YARD COMMUNITIES FOR 22 ENVIRONMENTA L JUSTICE, PEOPLE’S COLLECTIVE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 23 JUSTICE, and SIERRA CLUB, 24 Proposed Defendant-Intervenors. 25 26 27 28 1 Pending before this Court is Proposed Defendant-Intervenors East Yard 2 | Communities for Environmental Justice, People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, 3 | and Sierra Club’s (“Defendant-Intervenors”) Motion to Intervene filed November 6, 4 | 2023. (ECF No. 19.) This Motion is unopposed. (See ECF Nos. 23, 24.) 5 The Court has reviewed the Motion and finds that Defendant-Intervenors satisfy 6 || the Ninth Circuit's four-part test for intervention of right pursuant to Rule 24(a). 7 | Specifically, the Court finds that (1) the Motion is timely filed, (2) Defendant- 8 | Intervenors have significant protectable interests in this litigation, (3) those interests 9 || may be impaired by the disposition of this litigation, and (4) the existing Parties may 10 | not adequately represent those interests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a); Wilderness Soc’y v. 11 | U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant-Intervenors Motion (ECF 13 | No. 19) is GRANTED, subject to the conditions of intervention agreed to by all Parties 14 | and Defendant-Intervenors: 15 Proposed Intervenors may not expand the scope of this 16 action. In particular, Proposed Intervenors may not move for relief separately from the State Defendants, but Proposed 17 Intervenors are not limited in the arguments they may make within the scope of this action. Proposed Intervenors may 18 submit their own brief in support of any motion filed by the 19 State Defendants. All filings must be in accordance with this Court's Standing Order and may not be duplicative. 20 Proposed Intervenors and Plaintiffs agree not to pursue discovery between themselves. 22 | Defendant-Intervenors proposed Answer (ECF No. 22) is also deemed filed. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 | Dated: _ January 5, 2024 “Dinel CoD tto— 26 Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28