course, that additional delay is not alone decisive (otherwise intervention motion would be every denied out of hand because it carried with it, almost by definition, the prospect of prolonging the in original). litigation).”) (emphasis Third, the United States has compelling reasons for filing this motion at this time, rather than immediately after the initiation of For the past nine months, the United Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. States has engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with the parties in an effort to reach an amicable pre-suit resolution of the United and claims. These settlement States’ Plaintiffs’ negotiations began after the United States completed its investigation of the system of State’s providing employment services to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The negotiations did not reach impasse until earlier this month. Accordingly, this Court should find that the United to intervene is timely. States’ motion The United Interest is Inadequately Represented by Existing Parties States’ The final requirement for intervention as of right is that the interest proposed intervenor’s is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the case. “The [proposed intervenor’s] burden of showing inadequacy of representation is and satisfied if the applicant can ‘minimal’ demonstrate that representation of its interests Citizens for Balanced Use, ‘may be’ inadequate.” 647 F.3d at 898 (quoting 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003)). Three Arakaki v. Cayetano, factors are relevant: whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly “(1) make all of a arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and proposed intervenor’s willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would 324 F.3d at Arakaki, neglect.” 1086 (citing 792 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1986)). California v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
course, that additional delay is not alone decisive (otherwise every intervention motion would be denied out of hand because it carried with it, almost by definition, the prospect of prolonging the litigation).”) (emphasis in original). Third, the United States has compelling reasons for filing this motion at this time, rather than immediately after the initiation of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. For the past nine months, the United States has engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with the parties in an effort to reach an amicable pre-suit resolution of the United States’ and Plaintiffs’ claims. These settlement negotiations began after the United States completed its investigation of the State’s system of providing employment services to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The negotiations did not reach impasse until earlier this month. Accordingly, this Court should find that the United States’ motion to intervene is timely. The United States’ Interest is Inadequately Represented by Existing Parties The final requirement for intervention as of right is that the proposed intervenor’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the case. “The [proposed intervenor’s] burden of showing inadequacy of representation is ‘minimal’ and satisfied if the applicant can demonstrate that representation of its interests ‘may be’ inadequate.” Citizens for Balanced Use, 647 F.3d at 898 (quoting Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir. 2003)). Three factors are relevant: “(1) whether the interest of a present party is such that it will undoubtedly make all of a proposed intervenor’s arguments; (2) whether the present party is capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) whether a proposed intervenor would offer any necessary elements to the proceeding that other parties would neglect.” Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1086 (citing California v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 792 F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1986)).