BP America Inc. et al v. Yerington Paiute Tribe et al

Filing 78

ORDERED that plaintiffs' amended complaint (ECF No. 37 ) is DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' pending motions (ECF Nos. 38 , 41 , 51 , 53 ) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/26/2018. (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
10

BP AMERICA INC., and ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 3:17-cv-0588-LRH-(WGC)

v.

ORDER

YERINGTON PAIUTE TRIBE; LAURIE A.
THOM in her official capacity as Chairman
of the Yerington Paiute Tribe; YERINGTON
PAIUTE TRIBAL COURT; and SANDRAMAE PICKENS in her official capacity as
Judge of the Yerington Paiute Tribal Court,
Defendants.

18
19
20

Before the court are the parties’ recent status reports concerning the dismissal of the

21

underlying tribal litigation. ECF Nos. 75, 76, 77. The parties have reported to the court that

22

defendant Sandra-Mae Pickens, the Tribal Judge for the Yerington Paiute Tribal Court,

23

dismissed the underlying tribal litigation filed by defendant Yerington Paiute Tribe which was

24

the sole basis for plaintiff’s present complaint.

25

The court has reviewed the parties’ status reports and finds that the dismissal of the

26

underlying tribal litigation moots the present action because plaintiffs’ only requested relief in

27

the present complaint is for dismissal of the tribal litigation. However, the court disagrees with

28

plaintiffs’ contention that dismissal of the tribal litigation does not moot the present action
1

1

under the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine. Instead, the court agrees with

2

defendants that because the Yerington Paiute Tribe did not voluntarily withdraw its complaint

3

in the Tribal Court as it was dismissed by the Tribal Judge, the voluntary cessation doctrine

4

does not apply. Further, the court finds that even though that dismissal in Tribal Court was

5

without prejudice, plaintiffs have failed to show any indication by the Tribe that it will refile

6

the tribal litigation or that such tribal litigation would then not be dismissed by the

7

Tribal Judge. Therefore, the court finds that dismissal of the tribal litigation moots the present

8

action. Accordingly, the court shall dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint (ECF No. 37) and

9

the parties’ remaining pending motions (ECF Nos. 38, 41, 51, 53).

10
11
12
13
14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ amended complaint (ECF No. 37) is
DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ pending motions (ECF Nos. 38, 41, 51,
53) are DENIED as moot.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED this 26th day of July, 2018.

17
_
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2