United States District Court, D. Minnesota
W. Von Korff, RINKE NOONAN, for plaintiff.
Michael R. Drysdale and Robert E. Cattanach, DORSEY &
WHITNEY LLP, for the Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion Board of
Katrina A. Turman Lang and Joseph A. Turman, TURMAN &
LANG, LTD, for the City of Oxbow.
Kieley, Assistant Attorney General, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE, for movant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
R. TUNHEIM, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(“MDNR”) has moved to intervene in this case as a
plaintiff under Rules 24(a)(2) and 24(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers
Authority (“JPA”) supports MDNR's motion,
while Intervenor-Defendants Fargo-Moorhead Diversion Board of
Authority (“Authority”) and City of Oxbow
(“Oxbow”) oppose the motion.
(a) INTERVENTION OF RIGHT. On timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who:
. . .
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or
transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect
its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). The Court must “construe Rule 24
liberally and resolve any doubts in favor of the proposed
intervenors.” United States v. Ritchie Special
Credit Invs., Ltd., 620 F.3d 824, 832 (8th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Kan. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Reimer
& Koger Assocs., Inc., 60 F.3d 1304, 1307
(8th Cir. 1995)).
Authority and Oxbow only argue MDNR filed an untimely motion
to intervene. Authority and Oxbow concede MDNR satisfies the
other requirements of Rule 24, including the requirement that
MDNR possess Article III standing. (See
Authority's Resp. to MDNR's Mot. to Intervene &
Stay Decision on Pending Mots. at 2, Jan. 5, 2017, Docket No.
393; Oxbow's Joinder in Authority's Resp. to
MDNR's Mot. to Intervene & Stay Decision on Pending
Mots. at 2, Jan. 5, 2017, Docket No. 394); United
States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d
829, 833 (8th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standing
requirement). The Court finds MDNR's motion to be timely
and will grant the Motion to Intervene.
a motion to intervene is timely is determined by considering
all the circumstances of the case.” Mille Lacs Band
of Chippewa Indians v. Minnesota, 989 F.2d 994, 998
(8th Cir. 1993). Courts consider several factors
in determining timeliness, including (1) “how far the
litigation ha[s] progressed at the time of the motion”;
(2) the movant's “prior knowledge of the pending
action”; (3) any “reason for the delay in seeking