Case3:12-cv-05713-TEH Document76 Filed01/10/13 Page1 of 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 JOHN DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 8 v. KAMALA HARRIS, et al., 9 NO. C12-5713 TEH ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 This case presents a challenge to the constitutionality of the reporting requirements for 12 registered sex offenders that were enacted as part of Proposition 35, the Californians Against 13 Sexual Exploitation Act (“CASE Act”). Daphne Phung and Chris Kelly (“Proponents”), 14 private citizens and proponents of Proposition 35, argue that they are entitled to intervene, or 15 if they are not so entitled, that the Court should permit them to intervene. Proponents’ 16 motion came before the Court on December 17, 2012. For the reasons stated below, the 17 Court concludes that Proponents have not established that they have a right to intervene in 18 this action Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), but the Court will permit 19 intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). 20 21 DISCUSSION 22 I. Intervention as of Right 23 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a), an applicant has a right to 24 intervene in a pending action if four conditions are present: “(1) the intervention application 25 is timely; (2) the applicant has a significant protectable interest relating to the property or 26 transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the disposition of the action may, as a 27 practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and (4) the 28 existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant’s interest.” Citizens for Balanced