WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 49 Motion to Stay by Judge William J. Martinez on 02/16/2016.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02026-WJM
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALLY JEWELL, in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Interior,
U.S. OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

This action is brought by Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians (“Plaintiff”) seeking
judicial review of agency actions taken by Defendants U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation, and Sally Jewell in her capacity as the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff
challenges Defendants’ approval of mining plans authorizing federal coal development
in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming, under the National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4231 et seq. (Id.) After this action was filed, the Court received
Motions to Intervene from the State of Wyoming (ECF No. 11) and from the entities
operating each of the mines whose approval Plaintiff challenges, namely Antelope Coal
LLC, New Mexico Coal Resources, LLC, Bowie Resources, LLC, and Thunder Basin
Coal Co., LLC (collectively, “Prospective Intervenors”) (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 24, 30).
Defendants also filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer, in which they seek to sever

Plaintiff’s claims related to mines in Wyoming and New Mexico from the claim related to
the Colorado mine, and to transfer the Wyoming and New Mexico claims to the district
courts in those respective states. (ECF No. 26.)
This matter is now before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Stay of All
Proceedings (“Joint Motion”), filed on January 29, 2016. (ECF No. 49.) In the Joint
Motion, Plaintiff and Defendants state that they have agreed to commence settlement
negotiations that may resolve some or all of the contested issues in this case, and
request a stay of all issues until April 1, 2016, unless a prior joint motion requesting a
further stay is filed. (Id.) The Joint Motion also requests an extension of time for
Defendants to file their reply in support of the Motion to Sever and Transfer until ten
days after the stay is lifted. (Id. at 3.) Finally, the Joint Motion states that the parties
agree to include Prospective Intervenors in their settlement discussions, and notes that
Prospective Intervenor Wyoming does not oppose the stay. (Id. at 1 n.1.)
The remaining four Prospective Intervenors filed a Response to the Joint Motion
on February 1, 2016, arguing that the Court should first grant the Motions to Intervene
and the Motion to Sever and Transfer before any stay is imposed. (ECF No. 50.) The
Response argues that granting the Motions to Intervene will permit Prospective
Intervenors to participate fully in the case, and that the Motion to Sever and Transfer
should be granted before any stay in order for this Court to avoid deciding issues
involving the Wyoming and New Mexico mines. (Id. at 2–3.)
Both Plaintiff and Defendants replied to the Prospective Intervenors’ Response.
(ECF Nos. 51, 52.) In their Replies, the parties reiterate their agreement that
Prospective Intervenors be included in the planned settlement negotiations, and further
2

agree that the pending Motions for Intervention may be excluded from any stay.
(See ECF No. 51.) The parties further argue that the Motion to Sever and Transfer
should be stayed, not only because granting it could derail settlement negotiations, but
also because Defendants—not Prospective Intervenors—filed the Motion to Sever and
Transfer, and therefore should be permitted to request that their own motion be stayed.
(Id. at 2; ECF No. 52 at 2.) Plaintiff’s Reply also urges the Court to reject Prospective
Intervenors’ argument regarding the Motion to Sever and Transfer, because their
preference that the Wyoming and New Mexico claims be litigated in those districts does
not support their argument that those claims may not be settled in an omnibus
agreement that may be approved by this Court. (ECF No. 52 at 2.)
The Court agrees with Plaintiff and Defendants, and will therefore grant the Joint
Motion. Given the parties’ agreement to include Prospective Intervenors in their
settlement discussions and to exclude the Motions to Intervene from any stay, the Court
finds no prejudice to Prospective Intervenors in temporarily staying this matter for the
purposes of settlement negotiations. As to the Motion to Sever and Transfer,
Prospective Intervenors fail to present any argument that it would be inappropriate or
prejudicial for this Court to preside over a future motion to approve a settlement, if an
agreement is reached. As Plaintiff notes in its Reply, no party has raised any argument
that this Court lacks jurisdiction over all claims brought in this action. (See ECF No. 52
at 2.) Finally, a stay for purposes of settlement negotiations would preserve judicial
economy, and would comport with this district’s local rules in support of alternative
dispute resolution. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6(a).

3

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1.

The Joint Motion for Stay of All Proceedings (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED;

2.

This matter shall be STAYED until April 1, 2016, at which time the stay will
automatically lift;

3.

Should the parties seek a further extension of the stay, a joint motion
showing good cause for such extension must be filed on or before March
31, 2016;

4.

The pending Motions to Intervene (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 16, 24, 30) shall be
excluded from the stay, and the Court will expedite its ruling on those
motions; and

5.

In the event that the parties fail to reach a resolution of all claims in this
case, Defendants’ Reply in support of their Motion to Sever and Transfer
(ECF No. 26) shall be filed no later than ten days after the stay is lifted.

Dated this 16th day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

4