Kane County v. USA

Filing 745

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING SUWA'S MOTIONre: STAYING DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS - Because SUWA cannot satisfy the requirements for a stay, granting SUWA leave to file a motion to stay, would be contrary to the interests of judicial efficiency. Accordingly, the court denies SUWAs motion for leave to file a motion to stay 741 . See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 9/21/22. (jrj)

Case 2:10-cv-01073-CW Document 745 Filed 09/21/22 PageID.16506 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
KANE COUNTY, UTAH (2), (3) and (4),
a Utah political subdivision, and STATE OF
UTAH,
Plaintiff and (Plaintiff-Intervenor, as to
State of Utah),

AMENDED MEMORANDUM
DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING SUWA’S MOTION
re: STAYING DISTRICT COURT
PROCEEDINGS

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant,

Case No. 2:10-cv-01073

Judge: Hon. Clark Waddoups

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS
ALLIANCE, et al.,
Permissive Intervenor-Defendants.

This matter is before the court on SUWA’s Expedited Motion for Leave to File Expedited
Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Interlocutory Appeal. SUWA filed a fifth
Motion to Intervene as of right in this matter, which the court denied. SUWA has been granted
leave to file an interlocutory appeal. SUWA now requests leave to file a motion to stay this
proceeding while it appeals so it may “protect its position as an alleged interested party.” Mot. for
Leave, at 2 (ECF No. 741) (quoting Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356
F.3d 1256, 1267 (10th Cir. 2004)). The court denies SUWA’s motion for leave to file a motion to
stay.

Case 2:10-cv-01073-CW Document 745 Filed 09/21/22 PageID.16507 Page 2 of 4

ANALYSIS
When determining whether a stay is warranted, SUWA must show (1) likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) irreparable harm “‘in the absence of a stay; (3) other parties will not be
substantially harmed by the entry of a stay; and (4) the public interest favors a stay.’” United
States v. Various Tracts of Land in Muskogee & Cherokee Ctys., 74 F.3d 197, 198 (10th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).
A.

SUWA Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits

Although SUWA was permitted to intervene as of right, on the issue of scope, in another
R.S. 2477 Road Case, see Kane County (1) v. United States, 928 F.3d 877 (10th Cir. 2019), the court
has concluded the unique facts supporting intervention in Kane County (1) are distinguishable from
those in this action. Based on the court’s analysis when it denied SUWA’s fifth Motion to Intervene
in this case, the court concludes SUWA cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits.
B.

SUWA Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm

A three-week bellwether Bench Trial was concluded in this case in February 2020. Post-trial
briefing has concluded. The court is now addressing the briefing in two stages. A hearing is scheduled
for October 13, 2022 on the United States’ Motion to Dismiss every bellwether road on jurisdictional
or statute of limitations grounds. If the United States prevails, SUWA will have suffered no harm. If
the United States does not prevail, and the Tenth Circuit allows SUWA to intervene as of right, the
jurisdictional and statute of limitations issues may be revisited with no harm to SUWA.
Once the jurisdictional and statute of limitation issues are addressed, if any roads remain at
issue, a subsequent hearing will be scheduled to address whether the State or Kane County has
established an R.S. 2477 right-of-way. Were the Tenth Circuit to allow SUWA intervention as of right

2

Case 2:10-cv-01073-CW Document 745 Filed 09/21/22 PageID.16508 Page 3 of 4

in this case, these issues likewise may be revisited with no irreparable harm to SUWA. Accordingly,
the court concludes SUWA cannot show irreparable harm.
C.

Other Parties Will Be Substantially Harmed by the Entry of a Stay

SUWA has advised the court “that Kane County and Utah oppose” SUWA’s motion
seeking leave to file a motion to stay, and that “the United States takes no position on the Motion.”
Mot. for Leave, at 2 (ECF No. 741). This case has already experienced significant delays due to
the pandemic and the complexity of the issues before the court. The bellwether process is to test
legal theories. Until this segment of the case is concluded, resolution of R.S. 2477 claims on other
roads in Kane County has been halted. During these delays, some witnesses have passed away
and a lack of clarity has existed about which party is responsible for road maintenance and repair,
and what procedures must be followed when addressing such issues. Delaying this case further,
when SUWA is not likely to prevail on the merits, will work a substantial harm. Thus, the court
concludes this factor also weighs against staying these proceedings.
D.

The Public Interest Does Not Favor a Stay

It is important to note that, “by virtue of the court’s Order denying” SUWA’s Motion to
Intervene as of Right, SUWA “is not a party to this action.” Snap Advances v. Caring Hands &
Supplementary Enrichment Educ., No. 2:18-CV-00347, 2020 WL 1031797, at *1 (D. Utah Jan.
28, 2020). SUWA’s alleged interest, therefore, stands on a different footing than a party who seeks
to stay a case. 1

1

SUWA presently has the status of a limited permissive intervenor, which does not afford SUWA
the same rights as the original parties.
3

Case 2:10-cv-01073-CW Document 745 Filed 09/21/22 PageID.16509 Page 4 of 4

Additionally, roads in Kane County often are subject to flash floods or other weather
elements. The public has an interest in the safe travel of roads, and it is important for there to be
a clear delineation about which governmental entity is responsible for the repair and maintenance
of such roads. The public also has an interest in knowing whether a road is open or closed. Finally,
the public has an interest in the resolution of legal matters. Although SUWA may claim
environmental interests, its interests are but one of many that exist in Kane County. Due to the
many competing interests surrounding R.S. 2477 claims, the public has an interest in their
resolution. The court therefore concludes this factor also weighs against SUWA.
CONCLUSION
Because SUWA cannot satisfy the requirements for a stay, granting SUWA leave to file a
motion to stay, would be contrary to the interests of judicial efficiency. Accordingly, the court
denies SUWA’s motion for leave to file a motion to stay (ECF No. 741).
DATED this 21th day of September, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

4