Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co v. Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
695 F.3d 1310
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- This is a takings case arising from water releases from Friant Dam on the upper San Joaquin River, downstream landowners claim impairment of their water rights and inundation damages.
- Releases occurred under a district court consent order approved by Congress and tied to environmental litigation culminating in the Litigation Settlement.
- The Litigation Settlement prompted congressional enactment of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to implement it.
- Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. filed suit in 2010 alleging takings and damage from the releases; PCFFA moved to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
- The Court of Federal Claims denied PCFFA’s intervention; this court affirmed, holding adequate representation by the government and resolving the case on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCFFA may intervene as of right. | PCFFA argues its interests in settlement implementation require participation. | Government contends interests are adequately represented; no inadequacy shown. | Yes/No: Denial affirmed; government adequate representation. |
| What standard governs intervention review (de novo vs. abuse of discretion). | PCFFA favors de novo review. | Wolfsen favors abuse of discretion. | Court declines to decide; affirming under either standard. |
| Whether PCFFA has a protectable interest related to the water releases. | PCFFA asserts interests in ecological restoration and water management. | Interests align with government’s goals; no direct, non-contingent interest shown. | Intervention denied on this basis as adequacy of representation suffices. |
| Whether potential future settlements could impair PCFFA’s interests justifying intervention. | Settlement could undermine Settlement Act goals; intervention necessary to monitor/oppose. | Speculative at this stage; can intervene later if settlement threatens interests. | Not enough to warrant immediate intervention; rights reserved for future motion if needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1972) (burden of showing inadequate representation is minimal)
- Am. Mar. Transp., Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (intervention rules construed in favor of intervention)
- Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2011) (compelling showing standard for inadequacy of representation; presumption of adequacy when interests align)
- Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (three-factor test for adequacy of representation (interest, ability, contribution))