Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 22 of 25
C.
Alternatively, the NRA Should Be Permitted to Intervene.
1
In the alternative, the NRA moves for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B),
2
which provides that the court may, “[o]n timely motion,” permit anyone to intervene who “has a
3
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ.
4
P. 24(b)(1)(B). The Ninth Circuit recognizes three requirements for permissive intervention: (1)
5
an independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law or
6
fact with the main action. Cooper v. Newsom , 13 F.4th 857, 868 (9th Cir. 2021). Permissive
7
intervention should also not “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’
8
rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
9
As already explained, supra Section III(B)(iii) , the NRA’s motion to intervene filed less
10
than two months after Kalshi’s complaint is timely. The NRA also satisfies the remaining two
11
requirements for permissive intervention, and intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the
12
Court’s adjudication of the existing parties’ rights.
13
14
i. No Independent Ground for Jurisdiction Is Required.
15
Rule 24(b)(1)(B) generally requires the court to have “an independent basis for jurisdiction
16
over the applicant’s claims.” Glickman , 159 F.3d at 412. But when a “proposed intervenor in a
17
federal- question case brings no new claims,” the requirement of an independent jurisdictional
18
ground “drops away.” Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner , 644 F.3d 836, 844 (9th
19
Cir. 2011); cf. Town of Chester v. Laroe Ests., Inc. , 581 U.S. 433, 439-40 (2017) (intervenor needs
20
additional jurisdictional ground when pursuing relief different from existing party). Here, the
21
NRA brings no new claims; rather, it seeks to defend the State’s authority to regulate sports betting
22
in Nevada against Kalshi’s preemption argument. See supra Sections III(A), III(B)(i) and (iv).
23
Since this is a federal- question case based on Kalshi’s preemption argument, see ECF No. 45 at
24
4, and the NRA “do[es] not raise new claims,” an independent jurisdictional ground “is not
25
required here.” Republican Nat’l Comm . , 2024 WL 3409860, at *1.
26
27
28
Page 21 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs