JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Diana L. Lomahquahu's, Beverly Sunna Lomadofkie's, Ulanda C. Apodaca's, Muriel R. Jackson's, Alvin Jackson's, Laverne Thomas', Carol M. Thomas', Pete Lopez's, Jimmy Lopez's, and Manuel Apodaca Lopez, Jr.'s (collectively, the "Property Owners'") Motion to Intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or alternatively, 24(b). (Doc. 359).
This case, transferred to the this Court in 2005, was originally filed by G. Grant Lyon acting solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Michael Keith Schugg and Debra Schugg (the "Trustee"). The Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gila River Indian Community ("GRIC") is a federally recognized Indian Community organized under Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 461, et seq. GRIC is based on the Gila River Indian Reservation (the "Reservation"), which consists of approximately 372, 000 acres in south-central Arizona, and includes members of the federally-recognized Akmil O'odham ("Pima") and Peeposh ("Maricopa") Tribes. The case centers around a 657-acre parcel of land located entirely within the boundaries of the Reservation ("Section 16").
In a 2007 bench trial, this Court held that the owners of Section 16 have implied easements along Smith-Enke Road and Murphy Road to access Section 16. In its May 25, 2012 Order, the Court further concluded that the issue of the scope of the easements was now ripe. In a July 24, 2012 Joint Proposed Case Management Plan, the Trustee and GRIC explained their positions on the scope of the easement. (Doc. 336 at 2-3). Currently, the Trustee seeks a declaration that the scope of the easement allows the owners of Section 16 to: "(1) pave the Smith-Enke and Murphy easements, at a width that is reasonably necessary to support development of Section 16 at one home per 1.25 acres; and (2) install utility lines along the Smith-Enke and Murphy easements, as reasonably necessary to support the development of Section 16 at one home per 1.25 acres." Id. at 2-3. In response, GRIC asserts that: "the improvements or expansions of the easements sought by the Trustee are well outside of the scope of the implied easements and, as a matter of law, cannot be made without the consent of the Community and the individual tribal members owning affected allotments." Id. at 3.
The Property Owners are individual members of GRIC. Together, the Property Owners have ownership interests in at least eleven separate allotted parcels which directly abut Murphy Road and have additional property interests in nearby parcels. (Doc. 359 at 4). The Property Owners are attempting to intervene in this case to oppose "an expansion of the implied easement beyond its historical use." Id.
The Property Owners argue that they should be permitted to intervene under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), intervention as a matter of right, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), permissive intervention. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.
A. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) states:
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who... claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). To be entitled to intervention as of right, the applicant must show that: "(1) the application for intervention is timely; (2) the applicant has a significantly protectable' interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interest; and (4) the existing parties do not adequately represent the applicant's interest." League of United Latin Am. Citizens ( LULAC ) v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836 (9th Cir. 1996)). "[T]he applicant bears the burden of showing that each of the four elements is met." Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 841 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, "[f]ailure to satisfy any one of the requirements is fatal to the application." Id. The Property Owners' Motion to Intervene fails to satisfy the requirements in two ways. First, the Motion to Intervene is untimely, and, second, GRIC adequately represents the Property Owners' interests.
To determine whether a Motion to Intervene is timely, the Court must consider: "(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks intervention; (2) the prejudice to the other parties; and (3) the reason for and length of delay." LULAC, 131 F.3d at 1302. The Property Owners argue that they satisfy the first two elements because they sought to ...