Cemex, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent because, even if Santa Clarita does have a protectable interest in the subject of this action, 1 it simply has not shown that the County will not protect that interest. Indeed, the County has every reason to defend its actions regarding the conditions that it imposed on the Cemex permit, its processes in deciding so to do, and its legitimate authority.

Openhanded as we may be, Santa Clarita still has to show that the representation of its asserted interest may be inadequate. See N.W. Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825 , 838 (9th Cir.1996); Forest Conservation Council v. United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489 , 1498-99 (9th Cir.1995). It has not done so. It has not shown that any of its claims that are truly relevant to this action will be unrepresented. Mere differences about the strategy to be used in fending off Cemex’s attacks are not enough. See N.W. Forest Resource, 82 F.3d at 838. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that Santa Clarita will have a greater interest than the County in protecting the latter’s right to issue, or deny, permits. Of course, Cemex claims that it does not need any permits from the County, and that…

MEMORANDUM *

The City of Santa Clarita (“City”) appeals the district court’s interlocutory order denying its renewed motion to intervene as a defendant in an action by CEMEX, Inc., (“CEMEX”). We reverse. Because the parties are familiar with the record, we recite only the facts necessary to explain our decision.

CEMEX’s action challenges the County of Los Angeles’ (“County”) refusal to approve, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, a sand and gravel mining project near the City, in Soledad Canyon. The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) approved the project, based on a Final Environmental Impact Statement required by the National Environmental Policy Act, but conditioned its approval, inter alia, on the County’s approval of the project under state law.

The County conducted further environmental review. As part of the process, the City exercised its CEQA right of consultation and strongly opposed CEMEX’s plans to proceed with gravel mining in Soledad Canyon. Ultimately, the County refused to approve the project.

CEMEX brought an action challenging the County’s refusal to approve the project. CEMEX alleged, among…