United States v. Ivan Cermak

MEMORANDUM

Eric Lighter appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene in a lawsuit to foreclose upon federal tax liens on'real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the denial of intervention as of right, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of permissive intervention. Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949 , 953-54 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court properly denied Lighter’s motion for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) because Lighter failed to meet his burden to show that all requirements for intervention were met. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 24(c) (a motion to intervene “must state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought”); United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (setting forth four-part test for determining intervention as of right and explaining that “[t]he party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all the requirements for intervention have been met”); see also Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg,…