Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-2200
FARM
BUREAU
Plaintiffs Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; CENTER FOR
FOOD SAFETY; FOOD & WATER WATCH; POTOMAC RIVERKEEPER; WEST
VIRGINIA
RIVERS
COALITION;
WATERKEEPER
ALLIANCE,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants,
and
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:12-cv-00042-JPB)
Argued:
Decided:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(the
EPA)
in
the
connection
against
her.
with
EPA
In
the
administrative
latter
enforcement
stages
of
Alts
proceedings
litigation,
00042 (N.D. W. Va. July 30, 2013), ECF No. 104 (the Denial
Order).
we affirm.
I.
Alt owns and operates a chicken farm in Hardy County, West
Virginia.
to
her
on
November
14,
2011,
identifying
apparent
On June 14,
2012, Alt initiated her lawsuit against the EPA in the district
court, requesting a declaration that the Compliance Order was
3
invalid
because
agricultural
the
discharges
stormwater,
permitting requirements.
from
which
her
is
farm
exempt
constituted
from
the
CWAs
122.26.
On July 19, 2012, approximately a month after Alts lawsuit
was
filed,
Virginia
American
Farm
litigation
court
the
as
Bureau
Farm
jointly
plaintiffs.
granted
the
scheduling order.
Bureau
joint
Federation
moved
to
Three
months
motion
and
and
the
West
in
the
intervene
later,
the
district
entered
its
initial
the
lawsuit
as
defendants,
alongside
the
EPA.
Shortly
December
14,
2012,
the
EPA
withdrew
its
Compliance
to
the
administrative
enforcement
dispute.
The
of
the
proceeding moot.
Compliance
Order
rendered
the
entire
court retained jurisdiction because the EPA had not altered its
position
that
her
Hardy
County
4
farm
remained
subject
to
the
court denied the EPAs motion to dismiss and granted the motions
of
the
clean
defendants. 1
second
time,
water
advocacy
organizations
to
intervene
as
the
plaintiffs
to
file
any
summary
an
extensive
outside
the
memorandum
administrative
and
In a motion accompanied
multiple
record,
CBF
exhibits
asserted
that
were
right
to
the
seriously
judicial
undermine
declaration
a
sought
decades-long
by
effort
Alt
to
threatened
clean
up
to
the
EPA
nor
intervention
the
motion,
intervening
the
Although neither
defendants
various
plaintiffs
opposed
objected
CBFs
on
the
CBFs motion had not been timely filed and would, by [its] very
nature
. . .
unduly
parties rights.
delay
the
adjudication
Denial Order 5.
of
the
original
putative
intervenor
from
becoming
party
in
any
2006)
(recognizing
settled
principle
that
denial
of
II.
A party seeking to intervene under either Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 24(a) or 24(b) may do so only upon the filing of
a timely motion.
timeliness
requirement.
The
determination
of
Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 193 F.3d 838, 839 (4th
1999).
Indeed,
we
have
emphasized
that
courts
order
to
intervene
in
court
this
in
properly
civil
determine
action
Circuit
is
is
whether
sufficiently
obliged
to
assess
motion
timely,
three
to
trial
factors:
first, how far the underlying suit has progressed; second, the
prejudice any resulting delay might cause the other parties; and
third, why the movant was tardy in filing its motion.
Gould, 883 F.2d at 286.
See
at bar.
See Alt v. EPA, No. 13-2527 (4th Cir. Feb. 6, 2014),
ECF No. 39.
case
counsels
against
disturbing
the
district
courts
the
proceedings
below
had
already
reached
Several
months
of
settlement
transpired.
negotiations
had
once, and the courts scheduling order had been extended twice.
Moreover, summary judgment briefing and related proceedings had
commenced and were ongoing.
F.3d
195,
202
(4th
Cir.
(The
purpose
of
the
request.
CBF
concedes
(as
it
must)
that
its
13.
CBF
asserts
that
it
proposed
to
Br. of
allow
the
submissions,
thereby
otherwise visited.
mitigating
the
prejudice
it
might
have
Denial Order 6.
Affording the
we
must
evaluate
the
soundness
of
the
reasons
Belying its
late entry, CBF was not at all unaware of what was transpiring
in the district court.
plainly,
execution
of
CBF
its
admits
that
litigation
it
strategy.
and
lost
Such
in
the
deliberate
See Moten
224,
228
(D.C.
Cir.
1976)
(deeming
motion
to
intervene
to
conclude
that
the
abused
its
discretion
by
III.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we are satisfied to affirm the
district courts Denial Order.
AFFIRMED
10