ELR Citation: 48 ELR 20112
No(s). 16-17060 (9th Cir. Jul 3, 2018)

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's denial of a car owner's motion to intervene in DOJ's case against a German automaker to resolve alleged CAA violations. The owner argued that DOJ's settlement with the automaker violated Virginia's SIP by not requiring all affected vehicles to be bought back because the SIP prohibited owners of all affected vehicles from driving them. The district court denied the owner's motion to intervene, finding that the CAA's citizen-suit provision permits intervention of right only when the intervener seeks to enforce the same "standard, limitation, or order" as the government does in its action. Because the owner sought to enforce Virginia's SIP, which is not the same as the CAA provisions underlying the agency's complaint, the CAA did not permit the owner to intervene as a matter of right. The appellate court agreed, concluding that the CAA did not grant the owner an "unconditional right" to intervene in the agency's suit. The agency's action does not bar the owner from suing on his own, so he is not entitled to intervene here. The court therefore affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to intervene.