Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 9 of 25
Courts construe Rule 24(a)(2) “liberally in favor of potential intervenors,” California ex
1
rel. Lockyer v. United States , 450 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2006), and are “guided primarily by
2
practical considerations, not technical distinctions,” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg , 268
3
F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). For “[a] liberal policy in favor of intervention
4
serves both efficient resolution of issues and broadened access to the courts.” United States v. City
5
of Los Angeles , 288 F.3d 391, 397-98 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted); see also id. (“By
6
allowing parties with a practical interest in the outcome of a particular case to intervene, we often
7
prevent or simplify future litigation involving related issues; at the same time, we allow an
8
additional interested party to express its views before the court.”) (quotation omitted).
9
The NRA meets all of the four requirements for intervention as of right under Rule
10
24(a)(2). The NRA’s members have significant protectable interests through their Nevada gaming
11
licenses, the value of which will be impaired by a final judgment in favor of Kalshi’s theory of
12
federal preemption, and by their economic interests in preventing an unlicensed and unregulated
13
sports book operator to compete in Nevada . The NRA’s motion to intervene is timely and will not
14
prejudice the parties or occasion delay. The NRA’s intervention is necessary to protect its interests
15
and avoid being permanently subject to short-term political decisions, and the existing parties will
16
not adequately represent the interests of the NRA’s members. Under the liberal standards allowing
17
for as-of-right intervention, the NRA should be permitted to intervene.
18
19
i. The NRA’s Members Have Significant Protectable Interests That Are Related to Kalshi’s Lawsuit .
20
The first Rule 24(a)(2) requirement is “a significant protectable interest as to the property
21
or transaction that is the subject of the action.” Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control , 54 F.4th
22
at 1086. This requirement serves as a “practical, threshold inquiry.” Nw. Forest Res. Council v.
23
Glickman , 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). Rule 24(a)(2) does not mandate
24
“a specific legal or equitable interest.” Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 630 F.3d 1173, 1179
25
(9th Cir. 2011). Rather, i t merely requires that the asserted interest be “protectable under some
26
law” and that there exist “a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at
27
28
Page 8 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs