United States Tenth Circuit

In an appeal from the district court's denial of appellant's motion to intervene in an action brought by the U.S. under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the order is reversed where the proposed consent decree would eliminate appellant's contribution right as to the settling defendants, and thus appellant had an interest in the outcome of the action.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/10/2009
• Published 11/10/2009

Judges

• PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge., Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William George (Debra Tsuchiyama Baker, Michael Connelly and John Muir of Connelly, Baker & Wotring, L.L.P., Houston, TX, with him on the briefs) for Movant-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gerald Hilsher of McAfee & Taft, P.C., Tulsa, OK (Stephen L. Jantzen of Ryan, Whaley, Coldiron, Shandy, P.C., with him on the brief) Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants-Appellees., Joan Pepin, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section, Washington, D.C. (Robert H. Oakley and Samuel D. Blesi, of U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section, Washington, D.C.;  Daniel P. Lennington, Office of Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK;  James A. Bove, Office of General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.;  Pamela J. Travis, Office of Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, TX;  John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.