In Defense of Animals et al v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 77 Motion to Stay signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/3/11: The hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 68 remains set for hearing on March 24, 2011 as currently calendared. (Kaminski, H)

In Defense of Animals et al v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Doc. 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ----oo0oo---By Memorandum and Order filed August 9, 2010 (ECF No. 53), this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10). Thereafter, on August 11, 2010, Plaintiffs filed UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; ROBERT ABBEY, Director of the Bureau of Land Management; KEN COLLUM, Field Manager of Eagle Lake Field Office, ORDER IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS; DREAMCATCHER WILD HORSE AND BURRO SANCTUARY; BARBARA CLARKE; CHAD HANSON; LINDA HAY, No. 2:10-cv-01852-MCE-DAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

an interlocutory appeal of that decision to the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 55). 1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants have since filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 68); the hearing has been continued from January 13, 2011 to March 24, 2011. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Request to Stay Proceedings on said Motion to Dismiss pending the outcome of their appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the preliminary injunction issue. Plaintiffs argue that a ruling by

the Ninth Circuit may, at the least, provide guidance as to how this Court should rule on the merits of Defendants' motion, and at the most, control its outcome. In support of their request to

stay proceedings, Plaintiffs maintain resources could potentially be squandered if they are required to prepare a sur-reply, or a motion to amend the judgment if the case is indeed dismissed, depending on the outcome of the appeal. Having considered both

the Plaintiffs' request, and the Defendants' opposition, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have not made the required showing that a stay is warranted. The mere prospect of filing additional

briefing should the Ninth Circuit issue a contrary and binding decision is insufficient to further delay the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for an indefinite period. The Court consequently DENIES Plaintiffs' Request to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 77). The hearing on Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss (ECF No. 68) remains set for hearing on March 24, 2011 as currently calendared. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 3, 2011

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2