Western Exploration LLC et al v. U.S. Department of the Interior et al
Filing
36
ORDER - This Order describes the scope of the November 17, 2015 hearing on the 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which the Court finds necessary to address in light of the parties' recent filings. The hearing will be limited to the issues raised by the four Plaintiffs who filed the Motion. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
WESTERN EXPLORATION, LLC, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00491-MMD-VPC
ORDER
v.
11
12
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
This Order describes the scope of the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary
16
Injunction, which the Court finds necessary to address in light of the parties’ recent
17
filings.
18
On September 23, 2015, two counties and two private parties initiated this
19
action.1 (Dkt. no. 1.) Five days later, on September 28, 2015, these Plaintiffs filed a
20
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”), seeking an expedited hearing. (Dkt. no. 4.)
21
On October 2, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request and set a hearing on the
22
Motion for November 12, 2015. (Dkt. no. 10.) Pursuant to the parties’ stipulations, the
23
Court subsequently extended the briefing schedule on the Motion and continued the
24
hearing to November 17, 2015. (Dkt. nos. 15, 28.) On October 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed
25
an Amended Complaint adding additional plaintiffs (“Additional Plaintiffs”). (Dkt. no. 20.)
26
The Motion was fully briefed on November 12, 2015. On the same day, the Additional
27
28
1
The parties are Elko County, Eureka County, Quantum Minerals LLC and
Western Exploration LLC.
1
Plaintiffs filed a Joinder to the Motion. (Dkt. no. 33.) Unsurprisingly, the Motion and
2
related briefs do not address the claims of these Additional Plaintiffs, nor how the
3
Additional Plaintiffs can satisfy their burden in seeking preliminary injunctive relief
4
pursuant to the Winter factors.2
5
Thus, at the November 17, 2015, hearing, the Court declines to hear any
6
argument or testimony offered by the Additional Plaintiffs with respect to their request
7
for a preliminary injunction for the following reasons: the Court is hearing the Motion on
8
an expedited basis at Plaintiffs’ request, the parties have had ample notice of the
9
hearing date, the Additional Plaintiffs have had ample time since the filing of the
10
Amended Complaint to join in the request for preliminary injunctive relief and yet waited
11
until the verge of the scheduled hearing to file their Joinder, and the Motion and related
12
reply brief do not sufficiently address the Additional Plaintiffs’ burden for seeking
13
injunctive relief to permit the Court to prepare for the hearing, even if Defendants are
14
prepared to address them.3 The hearing will be limited to the issues raised by the four
15
Plaintiffs who filed the Motion.
16
DATED THIS 13th day of November 2015.
17
18
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
On October 6 and 19, 2015, Plaintiffs also filed three supplemental declarations
from individuals affiliated with Additional Plaintiffs Humboldt County, Washoe County,
and Ninety-Six Ranch. (Dkt. nos. 13, 18.) Those declarations predate Plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint, which was filed on October 22, 2015, as well as Additional
Plaintiffs’ November 12, 2015, Joinder to the Motion. (Dkt. nos. 20, 33.) The
supplemental declarations were thus filed before Humboldt County, Washoe County,
and Ninety-Six Ranch became parties to this case. The Court will not expand the
Motion’s scope to include the allegations contained in these declarations, which were
filed by then non-parties.
3
This ruling resolves some of the issues raised in Defendant’s motion to limit
testimony (dkt. no 34). The Court will address the remaining issues in a separate order
after the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?