`
`
`
`
`No. 19-70115
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Ninth Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION, et al.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
`
`Respondents,
`
`and
`
`MONSANTO COMPANY,
`
`Intervenor-Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES
`ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BASF CORPORATION’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE
`UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 15(D) AND
`NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 27-3
`
`Neal Kumar Katyal
`Kirti Datla
`Jo-Ann Sagar
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 Thirteenth Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 637-5600
`
`John C. Cruden
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`Anthony L. Michaels
`David A. Barker
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
`1350 I Street NW Suite 700
`Washington DC 20005-3311
`(202) 789-6000
`kes@bdlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor BASF Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 2 of 29
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Federal Rule of
`
`Appellate Procedure 26.1, counsel for Proposed-Intervenor BASF Corporation
`
`(“BASF”) certifies that BASF Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of BASF
`
`Americas Corporation. BASF Americas Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary
`
`of BASFIN Corporation. BASF Corporation, BASF Americas Corporation, and
`
`BASFIN Corporation are all Delaware corporations. BASFIN Corporation is a
`
`majority owned subsidiary of BASF USA Holding LLC, a Delaware limited
`
`liability company. BASF USA Holding LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`BASF Nederland BV, a Dutch limited liability company, which in turn is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of BASF SE (Societas Europaea – “SE”), a publicly traded
`
`European Company. BASF Corporation, BASF Americas Corporation, BASFIN
`
`Corporation, BASF USA Holding LLC and BASF Nederland BV are not publicly
`
`held. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of BASF’s stock.
`
`June 12, 2020
`
`
`/s/ Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
`1350 I Street NW Suite 700
`Washington DC 20005-3311
`(202) 789-6037
`kes@bdlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor BASF
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 3 of 29
`
`CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE
`
`The undersigned counsel certifies that the following information is true and
`
`correct, as required by Circuit Rule 27-3:
`
`1. Telephone numbers and addresses of the attorneys for the parties.
`
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor BASF Corporation
`
`John C. Cruden
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`Anthony L. Michaels
`David A. Barker
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
`1350 I Street NW Suite 700
`Washington DC 20005-3311
`(202) 789-6000
`
`Neal Kumar Katyal
`Kirti Datla
`Jo-Ann Sagar
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 Thirteenth Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 637-5600
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`George A. Kimbrell
`Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu
`Amy van Saun
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
`2009 NE Alberta St., Suite 207
`Portland, OR 97211
`gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
`swu@centerforfoodsafety.org
`avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.org
`(971) 271-7372
`
`Counsel for Respondents
`
`Stephanie M. Parent
`CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
`DIVERSITY
`PO Box 11374
`Portland, OR 97211
`(971) 717-6404
`SParent@biologicaldiversity.org
`
`
`Sarah A. Buckley
`J. Brett Grosko
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION
`P.O. Box 7611
`Washington, D.C. 20044
`(202) 616-7554 (Buckley)
`(202) 305-0342 (Grosko)
`sarah.buckley@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 4 of 29
`
`brett.grosko@usdoj.gov
`
`Counsel for Intervenor-Respondent
`
`Philip J. Perry
`Richard P. Bress
`Stacey L. VanBelleghem
`Andrew D. Prins
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 637-2200
`
`2. Facts showing the existence and nature of the emergency.
`
`As this emergency motion explains in full, the panel decision vacated
`
`EPA’s registration of Engenia issued to BASF. Neither the petition for review, nor
`
`subsequent developments in this litigation, put BASF on notice that its Engenia
`
`registration was at issue because Petitioners’ challenge was to the registration of a
`
`different pesticide, XtendiMax, which EPA registered in a separate agency action.
`
`The panel decision ordered the mandate issued immediately, which has forced
`
`BASF to act on a tremendously expedited basis to protect its rights with respect to
`
`its Engenia product, as well as the rights of farmers that depend on that product to
`
`grow their crops.
`
`Exacerbating the need for expedited action by BASF to protect its rights,
`
`Petitioners have now moved to recall the mandate and seek to hold EPA in
`
`contempt for its actions taken in the wake of the panel’s extraordinary decision.
`
`The mandate issued the same day as the decision. This left BASF and farmers that
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 5 of 29
`
`use Engenia in a state of flux—as it did for Monsanto and Corteva, whose
`
`registrations were also vacated in this decision. EPA attempted to address this real
`
`problem by issuing an order restricting the use of existing stocks by growers and
`
`certified applicators to those stocks that were in their possession as of the date of
`
`the mandate issuance, but only through July 31, 2020, and only consistent with the
`
`label restrictions associated with the now-vacated product registrations. Petitioners
`
`now seek to invalidate that effort to address the effects of the panel’s decision to
`
`issue the mandate immediately. That action directly affects BASF’s interests in the
`
`use of its Engenia product.
`
`Petitioners have sought expedited consideration of their motions, and BASF
`
`similarly needs expedited consideration of its intervention motion to allow it to
`
`participate in these proceedings.
`
`3. Why the motion could not have been filed earlier.
`
`
`
`As explained in full in the accompanying motion, BASF did not have notice
`
`that its rights in its Engenia registration were at issue in this litigation until the
`
`panel decision on June 3, 2020. BASF is filing this motion within ten days of that
`
`decision. And it is filing immediately after Petitioners filed their motion to recall
`
`the mandate and seek contempt.
`
`4. When and how BASF gave notice to, and served the motion on, counsel for the
`other parties and the other parties’ positions on the motion.
`
`Counsel for BASF notified counsel for Petitioners of BASF’s intent to file
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 6 of 29
`
`this motion on June 11, 2020 by e-mail. Petitioners oppose this motion.
`
`Counsel for BASF notified counsel for Respondents of BASF’s intent to file
`
`this motion on June 11, 2020 by e-mail. Respondents do not oppose this motion.
`
`Counsel for BASF notified counsel for Intervenor-Respondent Monsanto of
`
`BASF’s intent to file this motion on June 11, 2020 by e-mail. Monsanto consents
`
`to this motion.
`
`Service will be effected by electronic service through the CM/ECF system.
`
`5. Whether the relief sought was first sought in the agency, and if not, why the
`motion should not be remanded or denied.
`
`
`
`This motion seeks relief that is not available before the EPA: to intervene in
`
`a petition for review proceeding before this Court.
`
`6. Proposed briefing schedule.
`
`
`
`BASF proposes the following schedule for briefing this motion: any
`
`opposition to be filed on Tuesday, June 16, 2020, and any reply to be filed on
`
`Wednesday, June 17, 2020.
`
`June 12, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`
`Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
`BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
`1350 I Street NW Suite 700
`Washington DC 20005-3311
`(202) 789-6037
`kes@bdlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Proposed Intervenor BASF
`Corporation
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 7 of 29
`
`EMERGENCY MOTION TO INTERVENE
`
`
`
`The panel issued a decision with broad reach. Petitioners sought review of
`
`the EPA’s 2018 registration of a single pesticide—XtendiMax—made by a single
`
`manufacturer—Monsanto Corporation. The panel decision nonetheless reached
`
`not just that registration but also the separate registrations of two different
`
`pesticides—Engenia and FeXapan—made by two different manufacturers—BASF
`
`Corporation and Corteva—neither of whom were parties to this case. In the same
`
`opinion that faulted Respondents’ risk-benefit analysis, the panel chose to vacate
`
`these three registrations nationwide despite the undisputed harm doing so will
`
`cause farmers across this country. And ensuring it would be exceedingly difficult
`
`for the non-party manufacturers to protect their rights after the panel decision
`
`brought them into the case, the panel ordered the mandate to issue immediately.
`
`This decision left the manufacturers, and the growers who use their products, in a
`
`state of uncertainty in the midst of the growing season, and so EPA issued an order
`
`implementing the mandate that addressed the use of existing stocks. Petitioners
`
`yesterday moved to recall that mandate, vacate EPA’s order, and hold EPA in
`
`contempt. BASF now respectfully moves to intervene in this appeal under
`
`FRAP 15(d) in support of Respondent to protect its rights.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`
`
`In this appeal, Petitioners challenged EPA’s 2018 registration of Monsanto’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 8 of 29
`
`XtendiMax pesticide. EPA registers pesticide products under the Federal
`
`Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). “No
`
`person may distribute or sell any pesticide product that is not registered under the
`
`Act.” 40 C.F.R. § 152.15; see also 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(A). A “registration” is a
`
`“license that allows a pesticide product to be distributed or sold for specific uses
`
`under specified terms and conditions.” Pesticides; Procedural Regulations for
`
`Registration Review, 71 Fed. Reg. 45,720, 45,720 (Aug. 9, 2006); see Reckitt
`
`Benckiser Inc. v. EPA, 613 F.3d 1131, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2010). A registration is
`
`issued to a specific registrant, for a specific formula, packaging, and label. See 40
`
`C.F.R. § 152.3 (defining “[p]esticide product” as “a pesticide in the particular form
`
`(including composition, packaging, and labeling) in which the pesticide is, or is
`
`intended to be, distributed or sold”); 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(C).
`
`Petitioners’ challenge began in 2016. That year, EPA issued a registration
`
`for an agricultural herbicide called XtendiMax for post-emergent use—on crops
`
`that have emerged but are not ready to be harvested—on dicamba-tolerant soybean
`
`and cotton. After Petitioners petitioned this Court for review of the 2016
`
`registration, EPA amended the registration in 2017, and Petitioners amended their
`
`petition to seek review of the amended order. See Case No. 17-70196, ECF Nos.
`
`62, 68. The 2016 registration expired by its own terms, and EPA issued a new
`
`registration for XtendiMax on November 1, 2018. This Court then dismissed
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 9 of 29
`
`Petitioners’ challenge as moot. See Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. EPA, 747 F.
`
`App’x 646, 647-648 (9th Cir. 2019). The Court’s dismissal order directed the
`
`Clerk to expedite briefing and argument if Petitioners challenged “the 2018
`
`registration decision of the EPA.” Id. at 648.
`
`Petitioners filed this petition for review on January 11, 2019, continuing
`
`their challenge to the sole product they had previously challenged—XtendiMax.
`
`They cited the regulatory docket that had been opened for Monsanto’s XtendiMax
`
`registration (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0187-0968) and their prior petition for review
`
`that had challenged the 2016 XtendiMax registration. ECF No. 1-6 at 1. And they
`
`described their challenge as one to a document that “extended two earlier
`
`registration decisions by EPA over this same pesticide product.” Id. at 2 (emphasis
`
`added). Monsanto intervened. ECF No. 11. EPA had issued registrations for
`
`BASF’s Engenia on November 2 and for Corteva’s FeXapan on November 5. The
`
`petition did not mention these other companies, or their products and registrations.
`
`After argument this April, the panel directed supplemental briefing on the
`
`scope of Petitioners’ challenge. See ECF No. 111. Responding to a footnote in
`
`Petitioners’ brief, Respondents’ principal brief stated that the challenge was limited
`
`to the XtendiMax registration. ECF No. 48 at 12–13 n. 3. Petitioners did not
`
`respond—not in their reply brief, and not at oral argument. See ECF No. 72 (reply
`
`brief); ECF No. 110 (oral argument recording); see also ECF No. 112 at 9–10
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 10 of 29
`
`(EPA’s supplemental brief noting these omissions, and arguing that Petitioners
`
`waived any argument that the petition encompasses BASF’s Engenia registration).
`
`In response to the supplemental briefing order, Petitioners argued—for the first
`
`time—that the petition covered the separate Engenia and Corteva registrations in
`
`addition to Monsanto’s XtendiMax registration. ECF No. 115-1 at 2–3.
`
`Nine days ago, the panel issued its decision. It concluded that the petition
`
`was a challenge to an earlier-in-time decision document on which the order
`
`extending the XtendiMax registration—and separate orders extending the Engenia
`
`and FeXapan registrations—had been based. It thus held that “all three
`
`registrations are at issue in the petition.” Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. U.S. EPA, No.
`
`19-70115, 2020 WL 2901136, at *9 (9th Cir. June 3, 2020). The panel vacated
`
`that decision document and the three registrations, acknowledging the significant
`
`hardship this choice would inflict on farmers that use these pesticides, including
`
`BASF’s Engenia. See id. at *19 (noting “the difficulties these growers may have
`
`in finding effective and legal herbicides to protect their DT crops if we grant
`
`vacatur . . . through no fault of their own”); see also Key Decl, Ex. A at ¶¶ 11–15
`
`(discussing effects on growers and BASF’s manufacturing and sales).
`
`The panel ordered the mandate to issue immediately. See ECF No. 125.
`
`Consistent with the mandate, EPA issued an order addressing existing stocks of
`
`products with vacated registrations. ECF No. 127-3. Yesterday, Petitioners filed a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 11 of 29
`
`motion to recall the mandate, for an order instructing EPA to revoke the existing
`
`stocks order, and to hold EPA in contempt. See ECF No.127.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Now that the panel has placed BASF’s Engenia registration at issue, this
`
`Court should permit BASF to intervene and protect its interests. Rule 15(d)
`
`permits intervention in a proceeding for review of an agency order where sought
`
`“within 30 days after the petition for review is filed” and where the intervenor
`
`states an adequate “interest” and “grounds for intervention.” Fed. R. App. P. 15(d).
`
`The petition did not put BASF on notice that its November 2 registration was at
`
`issue, and BASF has moved expeditiously to seek intervention in light of the
`
`panel’s decision. This Court routinely finds that regulated parties meet this
`
`standard where the challenged regulatory action implicates their interests. See, e.g.,
`
`Ctr. for Food Safety v. U.S. EPA, No. 14-73359 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014), ECF No.
`
`12 (granting motion to intervene of Dow AgroSciences to defend its pesticide
`
`registration); Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 762 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2014)
`
`(intervention granted to applicant of challenged EPA permit); Akiak Native Cmty. v.
`
`U.S. EPA, 625 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 2010) (same).
`
`I. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO PERMIT INTERVENTION AFTER THE
`ORDINARY PERIOD SPECIFIED IN RULE 15(D).
`
`This Court should allow BASF to intervene though the ordinary time frame
`
`provided in FRAP 15(d) has passed. Under that rule, a motion for leave to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 12 of 29
`
`intervene in a proceeding to review agency action “must be filed within 30 days
`
`after the petition for review is filed.” Fed. R. App. P. 15(d). This “deadline is a
`
`claim-processing rule,” one that this Court “can excuse.” Int’l Union of Operating
`
`Eng’rs, Local 18 v. NLRB, 837 F.3d 593, 595-596 (6th Cir. 2016) (listing reasons
`
`such as “waive[r],” “forfeiture,” “equitable” considerations, and whether no party
`
`“oppose[d]” or would be “prejudice[d]” by the intervention); Zeigler Coal Co. v.
`
`Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 490 F.3d 609, 610 n.1 (7th Cir. 2007)
`
`(holding that a coal company’s surety showed cause to intervene after the 30-day
`
`period because the company’s liquidation in bankruptcy meant it lacked an interest
`
`in the matter and would not protect the surety’s rights).
`
`Intervention past the 30-day deadline is warranted here. First, BASF did not
`
`have notice that the petition put its Engenia registration at issue within the 30-day
`
`period, and it acted expeditiously after the panel decision vacated its Engenia
`
`registration. Second, intervention would be timely under the ordinary rules.
`
`A. Good Cause Exists To Permit Intervention Because BASF Did
`Not Have Notice That The Petition For Review Put Its Engenia
`Registration At Issue Until The Panel Decision.
`
`Because the petition for review did not refer to BASF’s Engenia registration,
`
`BASF had no basis to intervene within Rule 15(d)’s 30-day period, and it should
`
`be permitted to do so now. The petition did not reference the registration for
`
`BASF’s Engenia pesticide. Read fairly, it referred only to the XtendiMax
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 13 of 29
`
`registration. It referred to the regulatory docket that EPA opened for the 2016
`
`XtendiMax registration and continued for the 2018 XtendiMax registration. And it
`
`stated that the challenge was limited to the same pesticide product at issue in
`
`Petitioners’ earlier litigation in this Court, that is, XtendiMax. See supra at 3.
`
`Both during and after that 30-day intervention period, Petitioners’ filings
`
`repeatedly confirmed that their petition was limited to challenging the XtendiMax
`
`registration. For example, just days after the petition was filed, EPA sought a stay.
`
`When Petitioners opposed, they identified only “Monsanto’s dicamba pesticide”
`
`and “Monsanto’s XtendiMax” as the subject of the petition. ECF No. 8 at 2, 6.
`
`Petitioners did not mention BASF or Engenia. See id. Shortly thereafter, all
`
`parties jointly confirmed that the “petition, filed on January 11, 2019, challenges
`
`EPA’s order . . . granting a conditional approval of pesticide registration for new
`
`uses of Movant-Intervenor Monsanto Company’s Xtendimax.” ECF No. 21 ¶ 1;
`
`see also ECF No. 77-2, at 4 (“the pesticide registration issues in this petition
`
`involve . . . EPA’s decision to continue the registration of XtendiMax until 2020.”).
`
`EPA proceeded in reliance on this description of the petition. It repeatedly
`
`made clear that the Administrative Record it was compiling consisted of the
`
`documents considered in connection with EPA’s XtendiMax approval. ECF 26-2
`
`at 1–2 (certifying administrative record consisting of documents relating to EPA’s
`
`November 1 XtendiMax registration); ECF 34-2 at 1–2 (same). Petitioners did not
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 14 of 29
`
`contest the scope of the Administrative Record, and have not argued that EPA also
`
`needed to compile the complete Administrative Record for the separate Engenia
`
`registration. Because the Administrative Record for Engenia was never produced
`
`to the Court, the panel did not have before it a dozen studies of the spray drift and
`
`volatilization characteristics of the Engenia formulation. See Kay Decl. ¶ 7 &
`
`Attach. A. These materials would be required to be included in the Administrative
`
`Record in any challenge to the Engenia registration.
`
`The panel’s actions confirm that Petitioners had not clearly demonstrated
`
`that they meant to challenge BASF’s Engenia registration. Petitioners mentioned
`
`Engenia in a cursory footnote in their opening brief, filed long after the 30-day
`
`period for intervention. See ECF No. 35 at 2 n.4. Respondents argued that this
`
`passing mention did not put Engenia within the scope of Petitioners’ challenge.
`
`ECF No. 48-1 at 12-13 & n.3. Petitioners challenging agency orders bear the
`
`burden to “specify” each order “or part thereof” they are challenging. Fed. R. App.
`
`P. 15(a)(2)(C); see Gottesman v. U.S. INS, 33 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir. 1994)
`
`(specification requirement is jurisdictional). And yet Petitioners did not show that
`
`they had met this burden, not in their reply brief or their presentation at oral
`
`argument, both of which were silent in response to the EPA’s argument.
`
`It was precisely this lack of clarity that led the panel to issue a supplemental
`
`briefing order. That order observed, “[t]he briefing now before this Court does
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 15 of 29
`
`little more than to indicate disagreement between the parties” as to whether the
`
`Engenia and FeXapan registrations were implicated. ECF No. 111 at 3. Then, for
`
`the first time, Petitioners’ supplemental brief argued that they had intended to
`
`challenge BASF’s Engenia registration along with Monsanto’s XtendiMax
`
`registration. See ECF No. 115-1 at 2–3.
`
`It was thus not until the panel decision three weeks later that BASF
`
`simultaneously received notice that its Engenia registration was at issue, in the
`
`portion of the decision ruling on the scope of Petitioners’ challenge, and that its
`
`registration was no more, in the portion of decision vacating that registration and
`
`ordering the mandate to issue immediately. The panel held that the petition for
`
`review included the registration for BASF’s Engenia because the petition noted
`
`that the EPA decision document at issue “was ‘intertwined with and extended two
`
`earlier registration decisions by EPA over this same pesticide product.’” Nat’l
`
`Family Farm Coal., 2020 WL 2901136, at *8 (quoting ECF No. 1-6 at 2). The
`
`panel inferred that this reference to the EPA decision document swept in the
`
`registrations for BASF’s Engenia and Corteva’s FeXapan because that document
`
`announced EPA’s intent to amend those registrations. It reached this conclusion
`
`even though that document was not the final agency action as to Engenia’s
`
`registration; that required a separate action taken on November 2. See supra at 3.
`
`The panel’s conclusion that it was satisfied that the petition encompassed
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 16 of 29
`
`BASF’s Engenia registration—after supplemental briefing by the parties—says
`
`nothing about whether BASF had notice before the panel reached that conclusion.
`
`In the same sentence the panel quoted, the petition made explicit that Petitioners
`
`were challenging only the “same pesticide product” its earlier petition had
`
`challenged: XtendiMax. ECF No. 1-6 at 2. Engenia was not at issue in that
`
`litigation. See ECF No. 115-1 at 6 (Petitioners conceding that the earlier petition
`
`“was limited to Xtendimax”); Case No. 17-70196, ECF Nos. 1-5, 1-6, 62, 68.
`
`Petitioners’ statement that they challenged an action that was “intertwined
`
`with and extended two earlier registration decisions by EPA over this same
`
`pesticide product” cannot be fairly read to have put BASF on notice that
`
`Petitioners’ challenge also extended to the Engenia registration. And, as explained,
`
`the petition expressly challenged an order it described as having “extended two
`
`earlier registration decisions . . . over this same pesticide product” that were
`
`“challenged in this Court.” ECF No. 1-6 at 2 (emphasis added). Those earlier
`
`registrations were for XtendiMax, and the earlier case in this Court challenged
`
`those XtendiMax registrations. See supra at 3. Engenia was not at issue in those
`
`registrations, or those cases, and BASF had no reason to think that it was suddenly
`
`put at issue in this continuation of those earlier cases. While the panel viewed its
`
`expansive interpretation as consistent with one sentence in a footnote of Petitioners’
`
`opening brief, there is no reason BASF should have drawn that same conclusion
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 17 of 29
`
`given the scope of the petition for review itself, and given that the panel itself
`
`required supplemental briefing to reach that conclusion.
`
`BASF has acted expeditiously since the panel decision. Cf. United Airlines,
`
`Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U.S. 385, 395-396 (1977) (noting there is good cause to
`
`allow a late motion to intervene when “in view of all the circumstances the
`
`intervenor acted promptly” after the change that gave rise to the intervenor’s desire
`
`to participate in the litigation as a party). The panel issued its decision just nine
`
`days ago. And while it would be unreasonable to hold that a potential intervenor
`
`must read every filing on a docket even when the petition itself does not implicate
`
`its interests, even if Petitioners’ supplemental brief were deemed to put BASF on
`
`notice, it is seeking to intervene within 30 days of that filing.
`
`Not permitting BASF to intervene when BASF’s substantial interests are at
`
`stake, would be inequitable. The panel’s late-breaking decision reading the
`
`petition to include BASF’s Engenia registration—after the ordinary 30-day period
`
`for intervention in Rule 15(d)—raises due process concerns. See Mathews v.
`
`Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“The fundamental requirement of due process
`
`is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted)). As the owner of the Engenia registration,
`
`BASF has a property interest in that registration. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity
`
`v. U.S. EPA, 847 F.3d 1075, 1085 (9th Cir. 2017) (“FIFRA establishes
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 18 of 29
`
`comprehensive procedures for the EPA’s . . . cancellation of registration of
`
`pesticide[s].”); Indus. Safety Equip. Ass’n v. EPA, 837 F.2d 1115, 1122 (D.C. Cir.
`
`1988) (“There is no question that appellants possess cognizable property interests
`
`in their respirator certifications.”). And yet that registration has been vacated
`
`without notice to BASF and without its participation in this case.
`
`For related reasons, courts generally treat parties whose property rights may
`
`be harmed as necessary parties who should be joined in the litigation. See, e.g.,
`
`Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 270 (1978) (plurality op.) (“Our procedural statutes
`
`and the Due Process Clause mandate notice and opportunity to be heard to all
`
`necessary parties.”); see also Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric.
`
`Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that
`
`whether a decision will “impair or impede its ability to protect that interest” is
`
`relevant to whether a party is necessary). Yet neither the panel nor the parties took
`
`any steps to ensure that BASF would be joined in this appeal.
`
`Not permitting BASF to intervene after Petitioners’ new motion for further
`
`extraordinary relief would exacerbate the due process problem. Petitioners now
`
`ask this Court to direct EPA’s activities post-vacatur and to invalidate EPA’s
`
`existing stocks order. That requested relief directly affects BASF’s interests.
`
`Ruling on Petitioners’ request without BASF’s participation would compound the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 19 of 29
`
`due process injury that BASF suffered from the panel’s decision.1 For all of these
`
`reasons, there is good cause to permit BASF to intervene after the 30-day period of
`
`Rule 15(d).
`
`B.
`
`BASF’s Intervention Is Timely Under The General Standard.
`
`Even if the Court finds that BASF had adequate notice that the petition put
`
`its Engenia registration at issue, the Court should still excuse the 30-day deadline
`
`because this motion would be timely under the ordinary rules. Outside of the
`
`administrative review context, this Court “weigh[s] three factors in determining
`
`whether a motion to intervene is timely: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an
`
`applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason
`
`for and length of the delay.” United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915,
`
`921 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying these factors,
`
`this Court has granted a motion to intervene in circumstances identical to this
`
`one—i.e., after the issuance of a panel decision, and for the purpose of pursuing
`
`panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. See Day v. Apoliona, 505 F.3d 963, 965
`
`(9th Cir. 2007). Because each of the three factors weighs in BASF’s favor, the
`
`
`
`1 Indeed, Petitioners’ motion to recall appears to attempt an end-run around
`the jurisdictional requirement that challenges to an EPA order under FIFRA issued
`without a hearing—like the existing stocks order here—be filed in district court.
`See 7 U.S.C. § 136n(a); 5 U.S.C. § 702. Had Petitioners initiated a new challenge
`to this order in district court, BASF could have timely intervened.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 20 of 29
`
`Court should do the same here.
`
`First, although the panel has issued a decision, BASF’s intervention does
`
`not come at a late stage of the case. The petition for review at issue in this case
`
`was filed directly in the court of appeals. There was no earlier district court phase
`
`of the litigation. This is thus not the ordinary case in which a court deems
`
`intervention untimely, where intervention after an appellate opinion indicates that
`
`“none was sought in the district court.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 771 F.3d
`
`570, 574 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, Petitioners’
`
`motion to recall the mandate and to hold EPA in contempt for its existing stocks
`
`order presents a natural opportunity for BASF’s intervention in this case.
`
`Petitioners have now asked the panel to recall its mandate to address an order that
`
`directly affects BASF’s interests. BASF seeks to participate in the Court’s
`
`decisionmaking process with respect to the Petitioners’ request.
`
`Second, allowing BASF to intervene would not prejudice any party.
`
`Respondents’ and Intervenor-Respondents’ supplemental briefs argued that BASF
`
`was not on notice that the Engenia registration might be at issue and recognized
`
`that BASF would have intervened if it were on notice. See ECF No. 116 at 9
`
`(Monsanto urging the panel not to read the petition to cover BASF’s Engenia
`
`registration because to do so “would be profoundly unfair to . . . BASF, which
`
`lacked notice that [its] registration[ ] w[as] at stake and did not intervene to protect
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 19-70115, 06/12/2020, ID: 11720442, DktEntry: 130-1, Page 21 of 29
`
`[its] rights”); ECF No. 112 at 8-9 (similar statement from EPA).
`
`Third, BASF has not delayed in filing its motion for intervention. “In
`
`analyzing timeliness . . . the focus is on the date the person attempting to intervene
`
`should have been aware his interest[s] would no longer be protected adequately by
`
`the parties.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San
`
`Francisco, 934 F.2d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`As explained, see supra at 9–10, BASF lacked notice until the panel issued its
`
`decision. BASF filed this motion virtually immediately after that decision. In any
`
`event, “mere lapse of time, without more, is not necessarily a bar to intervention.”
`
`Day, 505 F.3d at 965 (quoting Alisal, 370 F.3d at 921) (deeming intervention
`
`motion filed two years after case began timely); see also Smith v. Los Angeles
`
`Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 843, 854 (9th Cir. 2016) (twenty years).
`
`II. BASF MEETS RULE 15(D)’S OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
`
`Allowing BASF to intervene in this appeal is appro