American Tradition Institute et al v. State of Colorado, The et al

Filing 213

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/19/14. (Simmons, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00859-WJM-BNB
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INSTITUTE, and
ROD LUECK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSHUA EPEL,
JAMES TARPEY, and
PAMELA PATTON,
Defendants,
and
ENVIRONMENT COLORADO,
CONSERVATION COLORADO EDUCATION FUND,
SIERRA CLUB,
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY,
SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, and
INTERWEST ENERGY ALLIANCE,
Intervenor-Defendants,
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
The parties requested a status conference “to determine whether remaining deadlines in
this case should be stayed until pending motions are resolved.” Unopposed Motion Seeking a
Status Conference [Doc. # 209, filed 2/7/2014] at p. 1. The status conference occurred today.
I discussed with the parties the pending motions for summary judgment (the “Early
Motions”), i.e., (1) Plaintiffs’ Early Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 180, filed
8/30/2013] which argues that the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard, section 40-2-124,

C.R.S. (the “Colorado RES”), is unconstitutional because it violates the dormant Commerce
Clause; (2) Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors’ Early Motion for Summary Judgment on
Claims 1 and 2 [Doc. # 186, filed 9/30/2013] which is the mirror image of the Plaintiffs’ Early
Motion and argues that the defendants/intervenors are entitled to summary judgment dismissing
the plaintiffs’ first and second claims because the Colorado RES does not violate the Commerce
Clause and is not unconstitutional; and (3) Defendants’ Early Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiffs’ Lack of Standing [Doc. # 188, filed 9/30/2013] arguing that the plaintiffs lack
standing to assert their claims and that there is no justiciable case or controversy as required by
Article III of the Constitution. The parties insist that resolution of the Early Motions will
materially impact how the litigation proceeds and the focus of the parties going forward. They
urge the entry of an order postponing the dispositive motion deadline and the final pretrial
conference until the Early Motions are decided.
I am persuaded that judicial economy and economy of the parties’ resources will be
served by delaying the dispositive motion deadline and the final pretrial conference as the
parties request.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The dispositive motion deadline (March 5, 2014) and the pretrial conference

(May 29, 2014) and related deadlines are VACATED, to be reset by further order of the court;
and
(2)

The parties shall file a status report within 14 days after an order by the district

judge resolving any of the Early Motions describing the order, addressing its impact on the case,
and discussing whether additional pretrial deadlines, particularly the dispositive motion deadline

2

and the final pretrial conference, should be reset.
Dated February 19, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3