California Department of Fish and Game v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/26/2012 ORDERING that this matter is STAYED pending further resolution in the Friends of the River case. Defendants are still required to lodge the administrative record with the court by the 1/25/2013 dea dline set by the parties' 24 stipulation. Either party may move the Court to lift the stay with proper notice after resolution of summary judgment motions in the Friends of the River case, and such a motion will be considered at that time. CASE STAYED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

No.

2:12-cv-01396-JAM-JFM

ORDER STAYING CASE

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS, and LT. GEN.
THOMAS BOSTWICK, in his
official capacity,

17

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff California Department of Fish and Game

20

(“Plaintiff”) previously moved to consolidate this action with

21

Friends of the River, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for

22

Biological Diversity v. United States Corps of Engineers, et al.,

23

Case No. 2:11-cv-01650 JAM-JFM (the “Friends of the River case”)

24

(Doc. # 16).

25

parties to brief whether or not staying the present action

26

pending further resolution in the Friends of the River case will

27

serve judicial efficiency because the cases contain nearly

28

identical questions of law and fact (Doc. # 20).

That motion was denied, and the Court ordered the

1

Plaintiff

1

opposes a stay (Doc. # 21) and Defendants United States Army

2

Corps of Engineers and Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostwick (“Defendants”)

3

support a stay (Doc. # 22).

4
5

Legal Standard

6

“[I]t is the prerogative of the district court to manage its

7

workload, [but] case management standing alone is not necessarily

8

a sufficient ground to stay proceedings.”

9

Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.

Dependable Highway

10

2007).

Before imposing a stay, a court must examine “[1] the

11

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2]

12

the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

13

required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice

14

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,

15

proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result

16

from a stay.”

17

Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th

18

Cir. 1962)).

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th

19
20

Discussion

21

Plaintiff opposes a stay in this matter on the ground that

22

it may be precluded from raising certain claims or legal theories

23

by operation of a judgment or finding in the Friends of the River

24

case.

25

identical parties or at least privity between parties in the

26

preceding action in order for preclusion to apply.

27

concerned that the Court may find such privity because it

28

previously indicated that the plaintiffs in the Friends of the

Plaintiff acknowledges that preclusion generally requires

2

Plaintiff is

1

River case can adequately represent Plaintiff’s interests.

2

No. 2:11-cv-01650 JAM-JFM (Doc. # 44).

3

Case

Claim preclusion and issue preclusion are collectively

4

referred to as res judicata and operate to prevent the

5

relitigation of claims and issues fully decided in prior actions.

6

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008).

7

generally does not apply to entities that were not parties to the

8

prior suit.

9

who were adequately represented in the prior litigation including

10

members of a class in “properly conducted class actions and suits

11

brought by trustees, guardians, and other fiduciaries.”

12

894.

13

Id.

Res judicata

An exception to res judicata applies to parties

Id. at

The Court finds that res judicata does not apply to

14

Plaintiff in the present circumstances.

15

“adequately represented” appears in both the standard for res

16

judicata and that for intervention, the analyses are quite

17

different.

18

requires either a class action conducted in accordance with the

19

particularized process associated with such lawsuits or some sort

20

of privity between the parties.

21

is not adequately represented by the plaintiffs in the Friends of

22

the River case with regard to res judicata, and any holding in

23

that case will merely instruct the Court as to the applicable

24

law, thereby preserving judicial resources.

25

be precluded from vigorously litigating the present matter if it

26

is temporarily stayed.

27
28

While the term

It is clear from the Taylor case that res judicata

In the present case, Plaintiff

Plaintiff will not

Turning to the Lockyer factors, it is clear that a stay in
this case is appropriate.

First, for the reasons just discussed,
3

1

Plaintiff will not suffer hardship or prejudice if this case is

2

stayed because res judicata will not preclude issues or claims in

3

this suit.

4

go forward at this stage because they will need to simultaneously

5

defend two lawsuits that raise nearly identical claims and

6

issues.

7

duplication.

8

be served by a stay because a resolution in the Friends of the

9

River case will simplify the factual and legal issues pending in

Second, Defendants will suffer hardship if forced to

Defendants have an interest in avoiding such
Finally, the Court finds that judicial economy will

10

this case and avoid duplicative expenditures of judicial

11

resources.

Accordingly, this case is hereby stayed.

12
13
14

Order
This matter is hereby stayed pending further resolution in

15

the Friends of the River case.

16

lodge the administrative record with the court by the January 25,

17

2013 deadline set by the parties’ stipulation (Doc. # 24).

18

Either party may move the Court to lift the stay with proper

19

notice after resolution of summary judgment motions in the

20

Friends of the River case, and such a motion will be considered

21

at that time.

22
23

Defendants are still required to

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 26, 2012

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4