more than six years after litigation commenced, and on the same day DTSC moved for judicial approval of the consent decree. Intervention at such a late stage weighs heavily against Cities. The district court found that the parties would be prejudiced by Cities’ intervention because intervention “at the final stage of this action would unnecessarily prolong the litigation, threaten the parties’ settlement, and further delay cleanup and development of the [Landfill].” The district court, which presided over the complex litigation for more than six years, did not abuse its discretion in finding prejudice to the parties, since intervention by Cities would complicate the issues and upset the delicate balance achieved by the Oil Consent Decree. See State of Washington, 86 F.3d at 1504 (<HOLDING>); United States v. State of Oregon, 913 F.2d
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 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 by finding prejudice when intervention was sought after settlement involving a delicate compromise following four years of negotiation with certain points still disputed 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 in finding that the incomplete and late submission of expert reports was not harmless