Colorado City, Town of v. United Effort Plan Trust et al

Filing 87

ORDER that the 73 Motion to Stay is denied. The parties shall contact the Court by December 12, 2012, if the Tenth Circuit has not issued a decision in FLDS v. Wisan et al. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/15/2012.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Town of Colorado City, an Arizona municipality, No. CV11-08037-PCT-DGC ORDER 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 United Effort Plan Trust, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Utah Attorney General has filed a motion to stay. Doc. 73. Plaintiff Colorado City opposes the stay. Doc. 78. The Court will deny the motion.1 17 A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings. Landis v. North 18 American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Lockyear v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 19 1098, 1109-13 (9th Cir. 2005). The party seeking a stay “must make out a clear case of 20 hardship or inequity in being required to go forward if there is even a fair possibility that 21 the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. 22 The principle of federal comity is designed to “avoid the waste of duplication, to 23 avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid 24 piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” W. Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA 25 Deep Sea Local 24 et al., 751 F.2d 721, 729 (5th Cir. 1985). 26 27 28 1 The request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 In his reply brief, the Attorney General clarified that he does not seek to stay 2 discovery in this case, and acknowledged that resolution of FLDS v. Wisan, et al. will not 3 fully resolve the dispute at issue in this case. Doc. 81 at 2. Rather, because he believes 4 the resolution of FLDS will affect this case, he seeks a stay after discovery is completed. 5 Id. Specifically, he asks the Court to stay the dispositive motion deadline and the trial 6 until after the Tenth Circuit has ruled. Id. 7 As the Court noted at the April 11, 2012 scheduling conference, it agrees that the 8 outcome of FLDS is likely to affect this case. Doc. 78-1 at 17. Rather than grant a stay, 9 however, the Court set the discovery schedule in hopes of delaying dispositive motions 10 until after the Tenth Circuit reached its decision. Id. Pursuant to that schedule, 11 dispositive motions are now due on January 11, 2013. The Court will continue to adhere 12 to that schedule, but if the Tenth Circuit has not ruled by December 12, 2012, the parties 13 shall place a joint conference call to the Court to discuss scheduling. This approach will 14 adequately address the Attorney General’s comity concerns, while allowing for an 15 efficient disposition of this case. 16 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (Doc. 73) is denied. The parties shall 17 contact the Court by December 12, 2012, if the Tenth Circuit has not issued a decision in 18 FLDS v. Wisan et al. 19 Dated this 15th day of October, 2012. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?