Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc. v. Intrepid Potash, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales denying 20 Defendants Intrepid Potash, Inc.'s and Intrepid Potash-New Mexico, LLC's Motion to Dismiss. By 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2017, counsel and Mr. Gamble will communicate to chambers via email whether they, in principle, have agreed to use in this case discovery produced with respect to the parallel state court case. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MOSAIC POTASH CARLSBAD, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civ. No. 16-808 KG/SMV

INTREPID POTASH, INC.,
INTREPID POTASH-NEW MEXICO, LLC,
STEVE GAMBLE,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY (DOC. 20)
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Intrepid Potash, Inc.’s and Intrepid
Potash-New Mexico, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay (Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay), filed September 19, 2016. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff
responded on October 3, 2016, and Defendants Intrepid Potash, Inc. and Intrepid Potash-New
Mexico, LLC (collectively, Intrepid) filed a reply on October 26, 2016. (Docs. 26 and 29). On
October 26, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to
Stay. At that hearing, Kathryn Brack Morrow and Forrest Tahdooahnippah represented Plaintiff,
Scotty Holloman and John Husband represented Intrepid, and Defendant Steve Gamble
represented himself.
Having considered (1) the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay, (2) the
accompanying briefing, (3) the arguments and comments by counsel and Mr. Gamble made at
the October 26, 2017, hearing, and (4) the relevant law, and for the reasons stated on the record
at the October 26, 2017, hearing,

IT IS ORDERED that
1. Defendants Intrepid Potash, Inc.’s and Intrepid Potash-New Mexico, LLC’s Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay (Doc. 20) is denied;
2. by 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 2017, counsel and Mr. Gamble will communicate to
chambers via email whether they, in principle, have agreed to use in this case discovery
produced with respect to the parallel state court case; and
3. each party will bear its own costs incurred with respect to Defendants Intrepid Potash,
Inc.’s and Intrepid Potash-New Mexico, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay
(Doc. 20).

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2