Kane County v. USA
Filing
363
ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS FOR ALL PURPOSES. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/26/2018. (jwt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
KANE COUNTY (2), UTAH,
Plaintiff, and
STATE OF UTAH,
ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO
JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS
FOR ALL PURPOSES
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 2:10-cv-1073 (Consolidated
2:11-cv-1031, 2:12-cv-476)
Chief District Judge David Nuffer
Defendant, and
SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS
ALLIANCE, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants
Intervenor Defendants filed a motion for leave 1 to file a motion about the ambiguous
record as to the presiding trial judge in the case. 2 The helpful factual summary 3 in the proposed
motion shows that it is not clear that a presiding trial judge is assigned to this case.
For nearly five years, Judge Clark Waddoups has been managing the case under the
“Memorandum Decision and Order for Joint Case Management; and Transferring Case” 4 signed
by Judge Robert Shelby. That order directed the clerk’s office to transfer the case to Judge
1
Motion for Leave to File Motion to Expedite Reassignment, docket no. 362, filed January 25, 2018.
2
[Proposed] Motion to Expedite Reassignment (“Proposed Motion”), docket no 362-1, filed January 25, 2018.
3
Proposed Motion at 2-3.
4
Docket no. 78, filed March 13, 2013.
Waddoups, who would “oversee and manage all non-dispositive, pretrial matters” 5 and at his
election, resolve dispositive motions. 6 The Case Management Order also contemplated that the
case would eventually be transferred back to Judge Robert Shelby for trial. 7 On August 29, 2015,
however, Judge Shelby recused from the case. 8
At the time of Judge Shelby’s recusal, the case was assigned to Judge Waddoups, and
there was no mechanism for appointing a future judge to whom the case would be transferred for
purposes of conducting a trial.
Judge Waddoups has managed this case, as a bellwether for more than 20 other cases, for
nearly five years. He also tried a case with similar issues, also arising in Kane County. 9 The long
dockets in these cases reflect the substantial expertise acquired by Judge Waddoups; that the
cases arise from similar events and facts 10 and involve substantially the same parties; 11 that the
cases call for a determination of the same or substantially related questions of law and fact 12 and
that the cases would entail substantial duplication of labor or unnecessary court costs or delay if
heard by different judges 13 with a risk of inconsistent verdicts or outcomes. 14 For these reasons,
which are all identified as factors supporting the transfer of related cases to a single judge, which
5
Id. at 3.
6
Id, at 4.
7
Id. at 4.
8
Order of Recusal, docket no. 252, filed August 20, 2015.
9
Kane County (1), Utah v. United States, 2:08-cv-315-CW.
10
DUCivR 83-2(g)(1).
11
DUCivR 83-2(g)(2).
12
DUCivR 83-2(g)(4).
13
DUCivR 83-2(g)(5).
14
DUCivR 83-2(g)(6).
2
the court may address sua sponte pursuant to DUCivR 83-2(g), under my authority as chief
district judge,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is assigned to Judge Waddoups for all
purposes.
Signed January 26, 2018.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
Chief United States District Judge
3
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?