such status does not allow [applicant] to raise issues or arguments formally and gives “because [applicant] no right of 651 F.2d at . . . appeal”); Smith, 1325 (“In appropriate circumstances, may supply the requisite practical impairment warranting intervention of stare decisis right.”). As such, intervention is necessary to protect the United substantial interest in this States’ litigation. The Application for Intervention Is Timely In the Ninth Circuit, three factors are weighed in determining whether a motion for intervention is the stage of the proceeding in which an applicant seeks to intervene; timely: “(1) (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the County of delay.” 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 745 Orange v. Air California, United States v. Oregon, F.2d 550, 552 (9th Cir. of time alone is not Rather, as Id. 1984)). “Mere lapse determinative.” the Supreme Court has is to be determined from all the emphasized, “[t]imeliness 413 U.S. 345, 366 (1973); 505 F.3d at 966 NAACP v. New York, see also Day, circumstances.” (granting motion where it could not that the state ignored the litigation state intervenor’s “be said or held back from participation to and noting that the gain tactical advantage[,]” “all circumstances of the case must be considered in ascertaining whether or not a motion to intervene is timely[.]”) (quoting 618 F.2d 48, 50 Legal of Alameda County v. Dunlop, Aid Soc’y (9th Cir. 1980)). In this case, all three prongs of the timeliness analysis weigh in favor of granting the United intervention motion. First, this motion is being filed at a sufficiently early stage States’ of the proceeding because the district court has not and substantially yet “substantively — — engaged the issues in (LULAC), 131 [the] case.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson F.3d 1297, 1303 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, the Court granted a motion by Defendants to dismiss, but
“because such status does not allow [applicant] to raise issues or arguments formally and gives [applicant] no right of appeal”); Smith, 651 F.2d at 1325 (“In appropriate circumstances, . . . stare decisis may supply the requisite practical impairment warranting intervention of right.”). As such, intervention is necessary to protect the United States’ substantial interest in this litigation. The Application for Intervention Is Timely In the Ninth Circuit, three factors are weighed in determining whether a motion for intervention is timely: “(1) the stage of the proceeding in which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.” County of Orange v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Oregon, 745 F.2d 550, 552 (9th Cir. 1984)). “Mere lapse of time alone is not determinative.” Id. Rather, as the Supreme Court has emphasized, “[t]imeliness is to be determined from all the circumstances.” NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 366 (1973); see also Day, 505 F.3d at 966 (granting state intervenor’s motion where it could not “be said that the state ignored the litigation or held back from participation to gain tactical advantage[,]” and noting that “all the circumstances of the case must be considered in ascertaining whether or not a motion to intervene is timely[.]”) (quoting Legal Aid Soc’y of Alameda County v. Dunlop, 618 F.2d 48, 50 (9th Cir. 1980)). In this case, all three prongs of the timeliness analysis weigh in favor of granting the United States’ intervention motion. First, this motion is being filed at a sufficiently early stage of the proceeding because the district court has not yet “substantively — and substantially — engaged the issues in [the] case.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson (LULAC), 131 F.3d 1297, 1303 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, the Court granted a motion by Defendants to dismiss, but