F.I.M. Corp. et al v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting 34 Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Venue. Plaintiffs may seek reconsideration in the event the Panel does not issue a decision on Plaintiffs' Motion by 6/5/2015. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/7/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

F.I.M., et al.,

10

Case No. 3:14-cv-00630-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
11
12

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

I.

SUMMARY

16

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Resolution of Venue

17

(“Motion”). (Dkt. no. 34.) Defendants requested expedited review and the Court imposed

18

a shortened briefing schedule. (Dkt. no. 35.) Plaintiffs filed a timely response and

19

Defendants filed their reply. (Dkt. nos. 39, 40.) For the reasons discussed below,

20

Defendants’ Motion is granted.

21

II.

BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiffs challenge Defendants’ decision to settle two private lawsuits

23

(“Settlements”), alleging that the Settlements resulted in unlawful modifications of U.S.

24

Fish & Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) statutory obligations under the Endangered Species

25

Act (“ESA”). (Dkt. no. 18.) Those allegedly impermissible alterations include

26

Defendants’ failure to follow procedural requirements for classifying a candidate species

27

and Defendants’ imposition of arbitrary listing determination deadlines. (Id.) The two

28

lawsuits underlying the Settlements were part of twelve actions against FWS that were

1

consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of

2

Columbia (“the MDL Court”). (Id. ¶ 55.) Plaintiffs allege that the unlawful effects of

3

FWS’s Settlements are particularly important to two species in Nevada that are

4

identified as candidate species and covered by the Settlements — the Greater Sage

5

Grouse and the Bi-State Distinct Segment of the Greater Sage Grouse. (Id. ¶ 8.)

6

Plaintiffs’ initial Complaint asserts six claims under the ESA, the Administrative

7

Procedure Act (“APA”) and the United States Constitution. (Dkt. no. 1 at 36-47.)

8

Plaintiffs later amended their Complaint to add a seventh count for equitable estoppel.

9

(Dkt. no. 18 at 48-50.) Among other relief, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that FWS has

10

violated the ESA and the APA by entering into the Settlements.

11

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on December 4, 2014. (Dkt. no. 1.) In response,

12

Defendants moved to transfer venue to the MDL Court. (Dkt. no. 15.) On February 6,

13

2015, the Clerk of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“the

14

Panel”) issued a conditional transfer order (“CTO”) transferring this case to the MDL

15

Court. (Dkt. no. 19-1.) Plaintiffs have opposed transfer and have moved to vacate the

16

CTO (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). (Dkt. nos. 21, 25.) The Panel recently issued a Notice of

17

Hearing Session, identifying Plaintiff’s Motion on the list of matters designated for

18

consideration without oral argument at its next scheduled session on May 28, 2015.

19

(Dkt. no. 30-1 at 12.)

20

Defendants seek a temporary stay of all non-transfer-related proceedings

21

pending the Panel’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion or the Court’s disposition of

22

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue (dkt. no. 15). In opposing Defendants’ Motion,

23

Plaintiffs contend that they are not demanding the immediate filing of the administrative

24

record or briefing on claims relating to the Settlements that are relevant in an Oklahoma

25

case that has been transferred to the MDL Court. Rather, Plaintiffs ask the Court to

26

resolve the parties’ immediate discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ estoppel claim.

27

///

28

///
2

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.

3

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.,

4

398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient

5

for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action

6

before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”

7

Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). “When

8

considering a motion to stay, the district court should consider three factors: (1)

9

potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving

10

party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by

11

avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.” Pate v. Depuy

12

Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 WL 3532780, at *2 (D. Nev.

13

Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal.

14

1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

15

These three factors weigh in favor of a brief temporary stay. A temporary stay

16

would promote judicial economy and avoid duplicative litigation, particularly given the

17

preliminary determination by the Panel that this case “involve[s] questions of fact that

18

are common to the actions previously transferred” to the MDL Court. (Dkt. no. 19-1 at

19

2.) A stay would also avoid potential duplicative rulings on the parties’ anticipated

20

discovery disputes.

21

Plaintiffs argue that there are compelling reasons to permit immediate discovery

22

on their estoppel claim, which, they allege, is unique to this case and has not been

23

previously raised. One of the reasons involves a 95-year-old witness who is a resident

24

of Nevada, and who has expertise and information pertinent to Plaintiffs’ estoppel claim.

25

The age of a significant witness is a compelling reason for the parties to conduct

26

discovery to capture the witness’s testimony, and, in turn, to utilize the witness’s

27

knowledge to advance discovery. But the duration of Defendants’ requested stay is

28

brief. The Panel has scheduled Plaintiff’s Motion for consideration at its meeting on May
3

1

28, 2015, which is approximately three weeks from now. Any potential prejudice to

2

Plaintiffs from the stay and commensurate delay in discovery would be minimal in light

3

of the stay’s short duration.

4

The Court therefore grants Defendants’ Motion. All non-transfer-related

5

proceedings are temporarily stayed pending a decision by the Panel on Plaintiffs’

6

Motion. Plaintiffs may seek reconsideration in the event the Panel does not issue a

7

decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion by June 5, 2015.

8

IV.

CONCLUSION

9

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several

10

cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and

11

determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the

12

Motion.

13

It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Resolution of

14

Venue (dkt. no. 34) is granted. All non-transfer-related proceedings are temporarily

15

stayed pending a decision by the Panel on Plaintiffs’ Motion. Plaintiffs may seek

16

reconsideration in the event the Panel does not issue a decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion by

17

June 5, 2015.

18
19

DATED THIS 7th day of May 2015.

20
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4