Anniversary Mining Claims L.L.C. v. United States of America et al

Filing 26

ORDER Granting 25 Joint Motion to Stay Discovery for Good Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:16-cv-00932-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 6

1 DANIEL G. BOGDEN

United States Attorney for the District of Nevada
ROGER W. WENTHE
3 Assistant United States Attorney
501 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Suite 1100
4 Las Vegas, NV 89101
2

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JOHN C. CRUDEN
Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division
SEAN C. DUFFY
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
ph: [phone]; fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for United States of America, et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15
16

17 ANNIVERSARY MINING CLAIMS, L.L.C.,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00932-JCM-GWF

18
19
20

Plaintiff,
JOINT MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY FOR GOOD
CAUSE

v.

21

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

22

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:16-cv-00932-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 6

1
2
3

The Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby move the Court for an
order to stay discovery for good cause shown. Support for this motion is set forth below.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff has brought this action under the Quiet Title Act and Declaratory Judgment Act,
seeking to quiet title so that it can use and maintain Anniversary Mine Road for commercial
purposes. ECF No. 1. On June 28, 2016, Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No.
15 at 1. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, and Federal Defendants
filed a reply. ECF No. 22. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed.

10

In the motion to dismiss, Federal Defendants contend that the complaint fails to allege

11

claims that satisfy the Quiet Title Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity and thus the Court lacks

12

subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). In

13

addition, Federal Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

14

granted and the Court must dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

15

On August 12, 2016, the Parties submitted a proposed discovery plan and scheduling

16

order pursuant to LR 26-1(b). ECF No. 23. In their proposed scheduling order, the Parties

17

proposed non-specific dates for discovery and related deadlines, all of which are contingent on

18

the Court first ruling on the motion to dismiss. Id. at 2-3. The Parties offered to file a substitute

19

discovery plan and scheduling order with specific dates should the motion to dismiss be denied

20

in whole or in part. Id. at 2 n.2. The Court denied the proposed discovery plan and scheduling

21

order and directed the Parties to submit a revised proposed discovery plan and scheduling order

22

that sets forth specific dates and related deadlines or to file a motion to stay discovery, pending a

23

decision on the motion to dismiss, supported by good cause. ECF No. 24.

24

The Parties have conferred and agreed to file this joint motion for a stay of discovery

25

pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. Good cause for granting this request is set forth

26

below.

27

There is good cause for the Court to order a stay of discovery pending a decision on the

28

motion to dismiss. In this case, Federal Defendants have filed a dispositive motion challenging
JOINT MOT. TO STAY DISCOVERY
FOR GOOD CAUSE

1

Case 2:16-cv-00932-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

the legal sufficiency of the complaint. That motion seeks to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
for failing to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction or to state a claim. The
Parties have not sought any jurisdictional discovery in this case and agree that the motion to
dismiss can be decided on the basis of the complaint itself and the Parties’ filings on the motion
to dismiss.
At this stage in the proceedings, the Parties can avoid expending costs and diverting
resources for purposes of discovery while the legal sufficiency of the complaint is being
challenged. In deciding whether to issue a stay, courts appropriately take account of
considerations such as the cost and inconvenience of discovery. Rule 1 of Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure encourages this by directing that the Rules shall be “construed and administered to

11

secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see

12

also Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597 (D. Nev. 2011) (evaluating whether to order

13

stay in light of Rule 1); Abrego v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 2:13-cv-01795-JCM-GWF, 2014

14

WL 374755 at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 31, 2014) (same).

15

The potential to avoid the costs and inconvenience of discovery is particularly

16

appropriate in cases like this one, where a stay is sought pending a decision on a dispositive

17

motion. In cases where a party seeks to stay discovery pending a decision on a Rule 12(b)(6)

18

motion, courts have applied a three-part test, granting a motion to stay where (1) the pending

19

motion is potentially dispositive, (2) the pending motion can be decided without additional

20

discovery, (3) and the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the dispositive

21

motion “and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Kor Media

22

Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013); Babin-De-Jesus v. American Express

23

Co., No. 2:16-cv-00636-RFB-GWF, 2016 WL 3563082 at *2 (D. Nev. June 28, 2016). The

24

Parties agree that the first two prongs of the three-part test are established. In this case, where

25

the Parties jointly move for a stay of discovery, it should be enough, for purposes of establishing

26

good cause, that the first two prongs have been established.

27
28

In addition, Federal Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Were the Court to agree with Federal Defendants that
JOINT MOT. TO STAY DISCOVERY
FOR GOOD CAUSE

2

Case 2:16-cv-00932-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 08/19/16 Page 4 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

there is no subject matter jurisdiction, it would be required to dismiss the complaint. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Indeed, the requirement that a federal court have subject matter jurisdiction is
so fundamental to its ability to decide a case on the merits, a challenge to it may be brought at
any stage of the proceedings and a court should raise the question sua sponte. Kontrick v. Ryan,
540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004). Moreover, in this case, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is
predicated on the United States’ sovereign immunity, which shields it from being sued at all in
the absence of an applicable waiver. In the context of motions seeking protective orders under
Rule 26(c), courts have noted that examples where a protective order should issue include
situations “when jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues.” Twin City Fire Ins.

10

Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989); see also Grand Canyon

11

Skywalk Dev. LLC v. Steele, No. 2:13-cv-00596-JAD-GWF, 2014 WL 60216 at *2 (D. Nev. Jan.

12

7, 2014). Because jurisdiction and immunity are preliminary issues in this case, there is good

13

cause for granting the motion for a stay.

14

The Parties agree that the foregoing reasons establish good cause for granting their joint

15

motion to stay discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff and Federal

16

Defendants respectfully and jointly request that the Court grant the motion to stay discovery for

17

good cause.

18
19

Respectfully submitted: August 19, 2016.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney for the Dist. of Nevada
ROGER W. WENTHE
Assistant United States Attorney
501 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89101

/s/ Karen Budd Falen (by scd w/ permiss.)
Karen Budd-Falen (pro hac vice)
Andrew Taylor (pro hac vice)
BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC
300 East 18th Street
Post Office Box 346
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003-0346
[phone] Telephone
[phone] Facsimile
[e-mail]

JOHN C. CRUDEN
Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division

27

/s/ Sean C. Duffy
SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar No. 4103131)

28

JOINT MOT. TO STAY DISCOVERY
FOR GOOD CAUSE

3

Case 2:16-cv-00932-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 08/19/16 Page 5 of 6

1

4

Trial Attorney
Natural Resources Section
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
ph: [phone]; fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

5

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

2
3

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED:

8
9
10

GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

11

August 22, 2016
DATED: _____________________________

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT MOT. TO STAY DISCOVERY
FOR GOOD CAUSE

4

Case 2:16-cv-00932-JCM-GWF Document 25 Filed 08/19/16 Page 6 of 6

1
2
3

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on August 19, 2016, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court via
the CM/ECF system, which will provide service to all attorneys of record.

4

/s/ Sean C. Duffy
Sean C. Duffy
Attorney for Federal Defendants

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

JOINT MOT. TO STAY DISCOVERY
FOR GOOD CAUSE

5