Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 16 of 25
The Court already indicated that it intends to receive further briefing on the merits, and the NRA
1
is seeking to intervene before that substantive briefing has even begun. This factor
2
overwhelmingly supports intervention.
3
The second factor requires the Court to analyze prejudice. Prejudice is measured
4
comparatively as the impact of the intervenor’s failure to seek intervention earlier, or “after he
5
knew, or reasonably should have known, that his interests were not being ad equately represented.”
6
Kalbers v. United States Dep ’ t of Just. , 22 F.4th 816, 825 (9th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). It
7
“must be connected in some way to the timing of the intervention motion” and does not arise
8
simply because a would- be intervenor’s involvement in a case “might make resolution more
9
difficult.” Id. (cleaned up). So, the only relevant question is whether any delay in filing this motion
10
causes prejudice to the parties. It will not. Neither party suffered any prejudice by any delay in
11
filing this motion and it would be unreasonable to expect parties who are not named in the initial
12
proceedings to seek to intervene much sooner. The NRA contacted the parties about intervention
13
and purposefully filed this Motion before the continued status check to allow the parties and Court
14
time to incorporate the NRA’s potential involvement into its discussion. And while the State
15
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the NRA does not seek to interfere with this briefing
16
schedule. Due to the procedural posture, the NRA seeks to file a joinder to the State Defendants’
17
Motion to Dismiss. The NRA also does not seek to add its own claims, which further cuts against
18
any potential prejudice. Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Aguilar , No. 2:24-cv-518-CDS-MDC, 2024
19
WL 3721198, at *4 (D. Nev. May 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted , 2024 WL
20
3409860 (D. Nev. July 12, 2024). This factor therefore also weighs in favor of intervention.
21
As to the third factor, any delay in the NRA’s intervention was minimal. See Kalbers , 22
22
F.4th at 825 (delay of a few weeks “weighs in favor of timeliness, rather than against it”); Smith ,
23
830 F.3d at 859- 60 (intervention timely when sought “only weeks after definitively learning that
24
their interests were not adequately represented by the existing parties”). Because all three factors
25
weigh in favor of timeliness, the NRA’s motion is timely .
26
27
28
Page 15 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs