El Sereno Neighborhood Action Committee v. California Transportation Commission

Good Law
112 F. App'x 630
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 5, 2004No. 02-56320California316 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The City of Alhambra and individual residents of Alhambra (collectively “Al *631 hambra”), appeal the denial of their motions to intervene as of right and permissively and for reconsideration of the denial of their motion to intervene. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Alhambra filed its motion to intervene both as of right and permissively in January 2002. The district court ruled that Alhambra’s motion to intervene was untimely because it was filed seven years after initiation of the underlying lawsuit in 1995 and four years after completion of U.S. Department of Transportation’s Record of Decision in 1998. Timeliness is the threshold requirement for intervention. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297 , 1302 (9th Cir.1997). Because the district judge did not abuse her discretion in ruling Alhambra’s motion was untimely, the motion to intervene was properly denied.

Alhambra filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion for intervention on July 17, 2002. The district judge’s conclusion that she did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion to reconsider was incorrect. See Fed. R.App. P.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.