The court denied the A’s request, saying the state can handle the matter on its own.

“The presence of [the A’s], a private party that only represents its own presumably profit-driven interests, will unduly expand the controversy,” District Judge Kristin Luis wrote in a ruling issued last week.

The A’s had argued they needed to intervene because “millions of dollars” would be at risk if the A’s did not satisfy the development timelines enacted in SB1, the legislation that authorized the public financing. However, Leon wrote that the A’s intervention would be “likely to cause delay and increased costs” in resolving the litigation.

She also wrote that the team’s interests would be represented by the state and associated local agencies, all of whom want the stadium built.

“The existing government defendants have the same ultimate objective as [the A’s] — persuading this court that, contrary to plaintiffs’ allegations, SB1 is constitutional,” Leon wrote.

The court has not yet set a hearing date to consider the state’s request to throw out the case, although both sides have filed formal arguments.

The Las Vegas Stadium Authority is expected to discuss progress on the proposed stadium at its regularly scheduled meeting July 18. Under SB1, the authorization for the public funding could expire if the if the A’s have not executed a development agreement and lease agreement within 18 months of MLB relocation approval, which was granted eight months ago.

The stadium, targeted for opening in 2028, is budgeted at $1.5 billion. A’s owner John Fisher is responsible for financing for all but the $380 million of public funding.