Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action . . . when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has broken down this rule into four elements, each of which must be demonstrated for intervention as of right to be proper: (1) the application must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a significantly protectable interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of the litigation; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability protect its interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the parties before the court. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997).

In considering the timeliness of the application for intervention, courts consider three factors: the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) prejudice to the other parties; and (3) the reason for and the length of delay. County of Orange v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 946 (1987). "[A]ny substantial lapse of time weighs heavily against intervention." United States v. Washington, 86 F.3d 1499, 1503 (9th Cir. 1996).