Kleissler v. United States Forest Service
157 F.3d 964, 1998 WL 668918 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), parties with direct, substantial, and significantly protectable economic interests that may be practically impaired by the litigation's outcome, and whose interests may not be adequately represented by existing governmental parties, are entitled to intervene as of right.
Facts:
- The United States Forest Service ('Service') approved two projects, the Minister Watershed Project and the South Branch Willow Creek Project, permitting substantial tree harvesting in the Allegheny National Forest.
- By federal and state statute, local school districts and municipalities receive 25% of the gross receipts from logging operations in the forest.
- Payne Forest Products, Inc. and Spilka Wood Products Co. held existing contracts to cut timber as part of the Minister Watershed Project.
- Ridgway Lumber Co. was the successful bidder on a contract under the South Branch Willow Creek Project, but the Service withheld the formal contract award pending the outcome of litigation.
- Brookville Wood Products, Inc. and Northeast Hardwoods are lumber companies that generate the majority of their income from logging contracts with the Service in the Allegheny National Forest.
- Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group, Inc. is a trade association whose members hold existing sales contracts with the Service and expect to bid on future timber sales.
- A group of residents and an environmental organization, Kleissler et al. (plaintiffs), initiated a legal challenge seeking to halt the logging projects and all related activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Kleissler et al. (plaintiffs) sued the United States Forest Service in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeking an injunction to halt logging projects.
- A group of school districts, municipalities, and timber companies ('the applicants') filed a motion for leave to intervene as defendants under FRCP 24.
- The district court granted the motion to intervene for Payne Forest Products and Spilka Wood Products, who had existing contracts.
- The district court denied the motion for all other applicants, finding their interests were 'of an economic nature based on expectation' and not protectable under Rule 24(a)(2).
- The unsuccessful applicants (appellants) appealed the denial of their motion to intervene to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), do local governments and commercial entities with direct, albeit varied, economic interests in logging activities have a right to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to enjoin those activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Weis, Circuit Judge.
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), local governments and commercial entities with direct economic interests in logging activities have a right to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to enjoin those activities. The court adopted a flexible, pragmatic approach, finding all applicants had a 'significantly protectable interest.' The school districts and municipalities had a direct statutory right to funds from logging, which would be immediately lost. Ridgway Lumber's successful bid represented more than a 'mere expectancy.' The other timber companies were so dependent on logging contracts that their continued existence was at stake. The court also determined that the U.S. Forest Service might not adequately represent these specific, 'parochial' economic interests, as the government must balance numerous complex and often conflicting public policies. The possibility that the government might not appeal an adverse ruling or might enter a settlement unfavorable to the applicants' specific interests is sufficient to show that representation may be inadequate.
Concurring - Becker, Chief Judge
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), local governments and commercial entities with direct economic interests in logging activities have a right to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to enjoin those activities. While agreeing with the outcome, this opinion critiques the majority's 'amorphous' and 'elastic' framework, advocating instead for a more structured, doctrinal analysis. An interest must constitute a 'tangible threat to a legally cognizable interest' (e.g., contractual, statutory, or property rights). Payne, Spilka, Ridgway, and the municipalities clearly meet this standard due to their contracts, successful bid, and statutory right to proceeds. Although a 'close question,' Brookville and Northeast Hardwoods also qualify because their heavy and consistent dependence on these contracts makes their interest tangible, not speculative. This legally cognizable interest is distinct from the more remote economic harm that might be suffered by a local diner or supplier, who would not have a right to intervene.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the scope for intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a)(2) in the Third Circuit, particularly within environmental litigation. By endorsing a flexible, pragmatic test over a rigid, formalistic one, the court lowers the barrier for parties with direct economic stakes in the outcome of such lawsuits. This ruling establishes that interests beyond existing contracts, such as those of a successful bidder or a heavily dependent business, can be 'significantly protectable.' This precedent increases the likelihood that environmental litigation will involve a wider range of parties, ensuring that specific, localized economic interests are directly represented rather than subsumed within the broader, and potentially conflicting, policy goals of a government defendant.
