Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
April LINDBLOM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, v. Vicki Blakely; et al., Movants-Appellants.
MEMORANDUM **
This case concerns Movants’ motions for permissive intervention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court’s denial of permissive intervention.
The district court acted within its broad discretion when it denied Movants’ motion for permissive intervention as untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). See Orange Cty. v. Air Cal., 799 F.2d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 1986). The district court identified and applied the correct legal rule to determine whether the motions for permissive intervention were timely, see United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), by analyzing “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay,” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to Movants’ assertion, American Pipe and China Agritech are irrelevant to Movants’ claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motions for permissive intervention. See China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1800, 1804, 201 L.Ed.2d 123 (2018); Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 562, 94 S.Ct. 756, 38 L.Ed.2d 713 (1974) (Blackmun, J., concurring) (noting that the proposed intervenors may be barred from intervention “if the district judge, in his discretion, concludes that the intervention will ‘unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties’ ” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b))). Further, Movants’ argument that they will be prejudiced if not allowed to intervene is irrelevant to the prejudice inquiry, in which the court considers the potential harm suffered by the original parties to the suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
The district court’s conclusion that Movants’ motions for intervention were untimely was neither illogical nor implausible, and it was based on inferences that may be drawn from the record. Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1262.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-16393
Decided: June 05, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)