71 Cal.App.5th 314
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- The China Shipping Container Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles operated under a 2001 permit; a 2008 environmental report found significant unavoidable impacts and listed mitigation measures that were never fully implemented or incorporated into the lease.
- The City Entities prepared a supplemental environmental analysis certified in 2019 and approved by the City Council in 2020 (the 2020 Report), which reduced some 2008 mitigation measures and acknowledged increased air impacts and cancer risk.
- In Sept. 2020 the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Air District) filed a petition for writ of mandate under CEQA seeking to set aside the 2020 Report and related approvals, alleging failures in baseline, project description, impact evaluation, enforceability of mitigation, monitoring, and findings.
- The California Attorney General and California Air Resources Board (Board) sought intervention; the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (Union) moved to permissively intervene, claiming ~3,075 members would lose jobs if the Terminal were shut down.
- The trial court granted limited mandatory intervention to the Board, denied the Union’s permissive intervention as speculative and unduly complicating, consolidated related cases, and the Union appealed only the denial of its permissive intervention.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Union has a direct and immediate interest to permit permissive intervention | Union: members face direct job loss from any remedy closing or suspending Terminal | Air District: Union's stake is speculative and consequential; existing parties (City Entities/China Shipping) will protect jobs | Court: Even if interest could be direct, denial was proper after balancing because other factors weighed against intervention |
| Whether allowing Union would enlarge issues or unduly complicate litigation | Union: would only advocate for a remedy preserving jobs (narrow focus) | Air District: union participation would be largely cumulative and invite numerous additional stakeholders, expanding and complicating the case | Court: Intervention would risk unmanageable expansion; denial proper |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention | Union: court abused discretion by excluding a party with substantial economic interest | Air District: court reasonably exercised broad discretion under §387(d)(2) and precedent | Court: No abuse of discretion; affirmed |
| Whether denying Union but allowing Board was arbitrary | Union: its interest is as or more immediate than Board’s, so inconsistent treatment is arbitrary | Air District: Board’s mandatory statutory role concerning Wilmington emissions distinguishes its intervention; different standards apply | Court: Not arbitrary — mandatory intervention for Board is a different inquiry; limited mandatory intervention was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, 29 Cal.App.5th 725 (2018) (permits courts broad discretion and sets factors for permissive intervention)
- City and County of San Francisco v. State of California, 128 Cal.App.4th 1030 (2005) (trial court must balance interests of affected third parties against management of litigation)
- City of Malibu v. California Coastal Com., 128 Cal.App.4th 897 (2005) (practical court-management concerns factor into intervention decisions)
- People v. Superior Court (Good), 17 Cal.3d 732 (1976) (denial of permissive intervention may be proper even if interest exists when other factors weigh against intervention)
- Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 1250 (2012) (intervention analysis is fact-specific; courts may deny to avoid unmanageable proliferation of parties)