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.” Id. (citation omitted). If we find that the motion to intervene was not timely, we need not address any of the remaining elements. Id. In County of Orange v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535, 538 (9th Cir.1986), we held that filing a motion to intervene filed after the parties had come to an agreement following five years of litigation should weigh heavily against intervention. We reached this holding even though the agreement had not yet been officially approved by the district court. Id. In the present case, Cities did not move to intervene until after the parties 588-89 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Air California, 799 F.2d at 538 (ruling that
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding prejudice when intervention was sought after settlement involving a delicate compromise following four years of negotiation with certain points still disputed holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding prejudice where intervention would complicate the issues and upset a delicate balance achieved after years of litigation holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court