Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 14 of 25
omitted), there is a sufficient relationship between the NRA’s asserted interests and the claims in
1
this case.
2
3
ii. Disposition Of This Case May Impair the Ability of t he NRA’s Members to Protect Their Interests.
4
The second Rule 24(a)(2) requirement is whether “the disposition of the action may, as a
5
practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest.” Cal. Dep’t of Toxic
6
Substances Control , 54 F.4th at 1086. Where an intervening party has already demonstrated a
7
significant protectable interest, “courts have ‘little difficulty concluding’ that the disposition of
8
the case may affect such interest.” TCutima, Inc. v. Bua Grp., LLC , No. 2:24-cv-1130-JCM-NJK,
9
2025 WL 587041, at *6 (D. Nev. Feb. 24, 2025) (quoting Lockyer , 450 F.3d at 442); see also Ctr.
10
for Biological Diversity v. Haaland , No. 2:24-cv-2043-CDS-NJK, 2025 WL 777528, at *2 (D.
11
Nev. Jan. 14, 2025) (this requirement “often follows as a matter of course” where a protectable
12
interest has been shown) (quotation omitted). Considerations of stare decisis can prove practical
13
impairment. See Greene v. United States , 996 F.2d 973, 977 (9th Cir. 1993); 7C Wright & Miller,
14
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1908.2 (3d ed., April 2025 update).
15
As explained, Kalshi’s lawsuit seeks to upend the longstanding authority of Nevada state
16
agencies to regulate in-state sportsbooks. The Court’s decision already impairs the NRA’s
17
members’ ability to protect their gaming licenses in future litigation, as it endorses Kalshi’s theory
18
about the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over the same sports betting products that NRA members
19
currently offer. Accordingly, the NRA’s members could “lose” the property interests “afforded to
20
them by [Nevada] statute[].” People’s Legislature , 2012 WL 3536767, at *4. That plainly
21
constitutes practical impairment under Rule 24(a)(2).
22
iii.
The NRA’s Motion is Timely.
23
The third Rule 24(a)(2) requirement is timeliness. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control ,
24
54 F.4th at 1086. “Timeliness is determined by the totality of the circumstances facing would -be
25
intervenors, with a focus on three primary factors: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an
26
applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of
27
the delay.” Smith v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. , 830 F.3d 843, 854 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation
28
Page 13 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs