Western Watersheds Projects vs John Ruhs, et al

Filing 19

ORDER approving ECF No. 18 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/9/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Case 3:16-cv-00179-LRH-WGC Document 18 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Julie Cavanaugh-Bill (NV. Bar No. 11533)
Cavanaugh-Bill Law Offices, LLC
401 Railroad St., Suite 307
Elko, Nevada 89801
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Paul D. Ruprecht (OR. Bar No. 132762), pro hac vice
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT
126 NE Alberta Street, Suite 208
Portland, Oregon 97211
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Erik B. Ryberg (AZ. Bar No. 023809), pro hac vice
Post Office Box 541
Etna, CA 96027
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

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

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00179-LRH-WGC
ORDER REGARDING

JOHN RUHS, in his official capacity as
Director of the Nevada BLM, JON SHERVE,
in his official capacity as the Field Manager of
BLM’s Mount Lewis Field Office, and the
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an
agency of the United States.
Defendants.

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Case 3:16-cv-00179-LRH-WGC Document 18 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 3

1

Pursuant to Rule 41(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action. The rule provides, in

2

relevant part, that: “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a

3

notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary

4

judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(1)(A)(i).

5
6
7
8
9

Here, federal defendants have not filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
Instead, they filed a motion to dismiss, based upon another party’s pending administrative appeal
for the decision challenged in this action. Doc. 14.
As explained in their recent motion for extension to respond to that motion to dismiss,

10

Plaintiff believed that appeal would be imminently dismissed. However, to Plaintiff’s

11

knowledge, that has not yet occurred, and Plaintiff is now uncertain as to when it will occur.

12

Therefore, it dismisses this case without prejudice and may refile at a later date after the appeal is

13
14
15
16

resolved. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(1)(B) (“Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the
dismissal is without prejudice.”)
DATED this 27th day of July, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
s/Paul D. Ruprecht

17

Paul D. Ruprecht

18

Attorney for Plaintiff WWP

19
20

ORDER

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED this 9th day of August, 2016.
_________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE—1