Ussec

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction to review the district

court’s order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405,

409 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

A district court’s denial of intervention as of right “is reviewed de novo,

except that its timeliness determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

Kalbers v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 22 F.4th 816, 822 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Smith

v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 843, 853 (9th Cir. 2016)). “‘A court abuses its

discretion if it fails to apply the correct legal rule or standard’ or if its ‘application

of that rule was (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences

that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’” Id. (quoting Smith, 830 F.3d at

853-54). A court has jurisdiction over a denial of permissive intervention “only if

[it] conclude[s] the district court abused its discretion.” Cooper v. Newsom,

F.4th 857, 868 (9th Cir. 2021). “If the district court did not abuse its discretion, we

must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Id.

1. We first address intervention as of right. A putative intervenor is…