Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/14/25 Page 24 of 25
iii. The NRA’s Intervention Will Not Cause Undue Delay or Prejudice.
1
2
Finally, Rule 24(b)(3) requires the court to consider whether “intervention will unduly
3
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). Here,
4
intervention will do neither. The NRA has sought to intervene at an early stage in the litigation
5
while the case is still in the pleading stage with a pending motion to dismiss and no answer on
6
file. Discovery has not opened and neither party will suffer prejudice from the NRA’s intervention
7
at this early stage. See Hudson Ins. Co. v. Miller , 2:15-cv-349-GMN-CWH, 2015 WL 5286884,
8
at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2015) (“Because this case is still in its infancy, Colonial’s intervention
9
would not unduly delay the litigation, and plaintiff has not presented any evidence showing it
10
would be prejudiced by the intervention.”); SFR Invs. Pool 1, 2023 WL 3341918, at *2
11
(characterizing the proceeding as in an early stage even after court had ruled on motions for
12
preliminary injunction and to dismiss).
13
Further, the NRA does not seek to alter the case schedule or assert any new claims. Instead,
14
it raises purely legal arguments that require no discovery or resolution of factual questions. See
15
Roberts v. Nye County , 2:22-cv-398-RFB-EJY, 2023 WL 2844963, at *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2023)
16
(finding “no practical prejudice” where permissive intervention was “neither going to materially
17
change the breadth of discovery that will occur in the instant litigation nor prejudice the Officer
18
Defendants through delay”) ; supra Sections III(A), III(B). Further, because those arguments relate
19
to the issues already presented to the Court, intervention will not complicate the case. As explained
20
above, the NRA’s motion comes shortly after it became aware of its need to intervene and two
21
months after the initiation of this legal action. Supra Section III(B)(iii). Any delay is minimal and
22
was necessary to ensure that this Court was provided with a full account of the relevant facts from
23
the NRA’s unique and invaluable perspective.
24
M oreover, intervention will not prejudice the adjudication of the existing parties’ rights.
25
With respect to Kalshi, there can be no possible prejudice —the Court already has granted Kalshi’s
26
motion for preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 45, and nothing about the NRA’s motion will
27
impede Kalshi’s ability to argue in support of further relief. And with respect to the State
28
Defendants, the NRA’s participation will, if anything, assist in responding to Ka lshi’s misleading
Page 23 of 24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs