The following excerpt is from Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2013):
The third requirement is dispositive here. In analyzing timeliness, we focus on the date the person attempting to intervene should have been aware his interest[s] would no longer be protected adequately by the parties, rather than the date the person learned of the litigation. Bates v. Jones, 127 F.3d 870, 873 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.