Amador County v. United States Department of the Interior
413 U.S. App. D.C. 192
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Buena Vista Ranchería of Me-Wuk Indians (the Tribe) is a federally recognized tribe occupying a 67-acre parcel in Amador County, CA; it negotiated gaming compacts with California that were submitted to the Secretary of the Interior and ultimately deemed approved under IGRA.
- Amador County sued the Department of the Interior in 2005 challenging the Secretary’s "no-action" approval of an amended compact, arguing the Tribe’s land was not "Indian lands" under IGRA.
- The Tribe sought to participate (initially as amicus) arguing it was an indispensable party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and that the United States might not adequately represent its interests; the district court denied the amicus request without explanation.
- This Court reversed an earlier dismissal and remanded for merits issues; after remand the district court set a Joint Status Report and the parties stated the case was ready for decision in November 2011.
- Three days before the Joint Status Report, the Tribe filed a motion to intervene (Rule 24) for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss under Rule 19 based on tribal sovereign immunity; the district court denied the motion as untimely and the Tribe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Tribe’s Rule 24(a) motion to intervene | Motion timely because practical inadequacy of U.S. representation only crystallized in 2011; sovereign immunity warrants heavy weight | Motion untimely because Tribe knew in 2005 that its rights and potential inadequacy of representation were at issue and waited years to move | Denied: court did not abuse discretion; motion was untimely given delay and prejudice from further delay |
| Weight to give sovereign immunity as purpose for intervention | Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional/quasi‑jurisdictional and thus deserves heightened weight in timeliness analysis | No special extra weight required; district court properly considered purpose alongside other factors | Held: no special weighting required; district court properly considered the Tribe’s purpose |
| Proper start date for elapsed-time calculation | Start date should be 2011, when the government took a position creating an actual conflict | Start date is 2005 because Tribe’s 2005 amicus brief already asserted Rule 19 defense and potential inadequate representation | Held: 2005 was the relevant start date; no abuse of discretion in using it |
| Prejudice from intervention | Tribe argued prejudice factor was not properly analyzed and that length of delay alone shouldn’t be dispositive | County/Interior argued intervention would further delay a case already ready for decision and thus prejudice existing parties | Held: district court correctly found granting intervention would cause prejudicial delay and properly weighed prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- British Am. Tobacco Australia Servs., Ltd. v. The Commonwealth, 437 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (timeliness threshold for intervention)
- NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (1973) (untimely intervention must be denied)
- Roane v. Leonhart, 741 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (timeliness judged to prevent unfair disruption; length of delay not dispositive)
- Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (failure to weigh purposes for intervention can be reversible error)
- Smoke v. Norton, 252 F.3d 468 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (measure elapsed time from when potential inadequacy of representation comes into existence)