Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 15 of 25
omitted). Prejudice is the most important factor, id. at 857, but all three are analyzed by reference
1
to the “crucial date . . . when proposed intervenors should have been aware that their interests
2
would not be adequately protected by the existing parties,” id. at 854 (quotation omitted). The
3
procedural history is therefore critical to this Court’s analysis of timeliness.
4
Kalshi filed its complaint and concurrently moved for a temporary restraining order and
5
injunctive relief on March 28, 2025, less than two months ago. ECF No. 1, 18. The State
6
Defendants responded to Kalshi’s motion for injunctive relief on April 4, and co unter-moved for
7
a competing temporary restraining order on that same date. ECF No. 34, 35. The Court held oral
8
arguments on April 8. ECF No. 43. The Court orally granted Kalshi’s motion and denied the State
9
Defendants’ countermotion, id . The State Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 23,
10
just 21 days ago. ECF No. 50. Since then, there have been only limited docket entries, only two
11
of which (Kalshi’s response to the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and the State Defendants’
12
Reply) were substantive. ECF Nos. 55, 56. The Court has not yet ordered oral argument or made
13
a dispositive ruling on the motion to dismiss.
14
As this procedural history shows, this case is still in the pleading stage with a pending (but
15
not yet fully briefed) motion to dismiss and no answer on file. Discovery has not opened, and thus
16
there are no pending discovery deadlines or a trial date. Courts routinely find that motions to
17
intervene at such an early stage (or even later) are timely. See, e.g. , Nev. Ass’n of Ctys. v. U.S.
18
Dep’t of the Interior , No. 3:13-cv-712-MMD-WGC, 2014 WL 1338736, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 2,
19
2014) (within two months of complaint and before answer); Nevada v. United States , No. 3:18-
20
cv-569-MMD-CBC, 2019 WL 718825, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 14, 2019) (within two months of
21
complaint and before answer); see also PEST Comm. v. Miller , 648 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1212 (D.
22
Nev. 2009), aff’d , 626 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (two months after answer); Pershing Cnty. v.
23
Jewell , No. 3:14-cv-466-MMD-WGC, 2015 WL 3658074, at *3 (D. Nev. June 12, 2015) (one
24
month after answer). And while the Court has ruled on the preliminary-injunction motions, see
25
ECF Nos. 43, 45, that does not alter the timeliness of this intervention. See, e.g. , SFR Invs. Pool
26
1, LLC v. Newrez LLC , No. 2:22-cv-626-GMN-EJY, 2023 WL 3341918, at *2 (D. Nev. May 10,
27
2023) (early stage even after court had ruled on motions for preliminary injunction and to dismiss).
28
Page 14 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs