satisfies the causation element. See Tarek ibn Ziyad Acad., 643 F.3d at 1093. Lastly, NSP’s injury can be redressed. NSP seeks to prevent the Environmental Groups from obtaining an order imposing BART on Sherco. If NSP prevails, it avoids, or at least delays, the costly technology the Environmental Groups seek. C. Satisfied that NSP has sufficient Article III standing to intervene, we must now decide whether NSP complies with the requirements of Rule 24. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides that a court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) files a timely motion to intervene; (2) “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action”; (3) is situated so that disposing of the action may, as a practical matt Cir.1996) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). This case is no different. The Environmental
holding that a farming federation had a sufficient interest to intervene because the plaintiffs complaint sought among other things to enjoin the usda from supporting the farmers pumping activity and to order the usda to establish waterreduction programs holding that in order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under  1983 a plaintiff must establish among other things the absence of probable cause for the initiation of the proceedings against her holding the evidence sufficient to establish the defendants knowing possession of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt when among other things the defendant admitted to a law enforcement officer that he had acquired the shotgun for his protection and that officers testimony went uncontradicted at trial holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime holding that even though the plaintiff was incarcerated for only one day before his extradition hearing the complaint was sufficient to establish a due process violation at the pleadings stage because it alleged among other things that the defendants falsely arrested the plaintiff without probable cause and with deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs rights