Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.

An order granting or denying intervention is only appealable from a final order in the underlying case. Alsea Valley Alliance v. Department of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). If that underlying case is remanded to an administrative agency, an appeal of a denial of intervention must be dismissed for mootness.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved two rights-of-way for pipelines across Federal land. The Center for Biological Diversity (Center) appealed on the basis that the approval violated several Federal statutes. BLM filed a motion for remand-and-vacatur to reconsider their approval. Several parties that stood to benefit from the pipeline filed to intervene, but were denied. Those parties appealed, but in the meantime the District Court granted BLM’s motion on the basis that their original approval was arbitrary and capricious. 

An appeal of a denial of intervention is moot if the court is unable to “grant any effectual relief [...] even if [the court] were to determine that the district court erred.” United States v. Sprint Commc’ns, Inc., 855 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2017). An order granting or denying intervention is only appealable from a final order in the underlying case. Alsea Valley Alliance v. Department of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, nothing remained pending and there was no final judgment because the dispute was remanded to the agency. Because the only path for the intervenors was for BLM or the Center to appeal that remand order, and because neither had appealed, the Court held that it could not afford Appellants any path to relief by granting intervention. 

DISMISSED FOR MOOTNESS.