Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke

MEMORANDUM

Current and former members of the Cahto Tribe (“Tribe”), the “Sloans,” appeal the denial of their motion seeking to intervene, Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, on the side of defendants in an action brought by the Tribe for review of a decision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). Because the disposition of this action does not “as a practical matter impair or impede,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2), the Sloans’ ability to protect then-interests, we affirm the district court’s denial of intervention as of right. We also dismiss the appeal in part because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention.

I. Intervention of Right

We have jurisdiction over the denial of a motion to intervene as a matter of right as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir.2011), and our review is de novo, Schultz v. United States, 594 F.3d 1120, 1122 (9th Cir.2010).

We apply a four-part test to determine if an applicant for intervention is entitled to intervene as a matter of right:

Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.2003); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). Because the Sloans have…