Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance et al v. Allred et al

Filing 453

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying #409 Motion to Stay ; denying #413 Motion to Stay ; denying #417 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 11/17/2015. (jwt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS
ALLIANCE, et al,
Plaintiffs,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Consolidated Case No. 2:12CV257DAK

JANICE SCHNEIDER, et al.,

Judge Dale A. Kimball

Defendants.
EOG Resources, et al.,
Defendant-Intervenors.

This matter is before the court on Defendants’s Motion for a Partial Stay of the Remedy
Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 409], Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion for Partial Stay of the
Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 413], and the Recreation Groups’ Joinder in
Motions for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 417]. The motions
are fully briefed and the court concludes that oral argument would not significantly aid the court
in its determination of the motions.
Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “[a] party must ordinarily
move first in the district court for . . . a stay of the judgment or order of the district court pending
appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that while
different rules of procedure govern the power of district courts and courts of appeals to stay an
order pending appeal, the factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: “(1)

whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the
stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the
public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).1
For the reasons more fully set forth in Plaintiffs’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for a
Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 423], the court concludes that
Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors have not shown (1) that they are likely to succeed on
appeal, (2) that they will suffer irreparable injury if the court’s Remedy Order is not stayed
pending appeal, (3) that Plaintiffs will not be irreparably harmed by a stay, or (4) that the stay is
in the public interest.
Because the court adopts the reasoning set forth by Plaintiffs, Defendants’s Motion for a
Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 409], Defendant-Intervenors’
Motion for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 413], and the
Recreation Groups’ Joinder in Motions for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal
[Docket No. 417] are DENIED.

1

The government also cites Rule 62(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a
standard governing its request for a stay because this appeal is from a Rule 54(b) final judgment.
Under Rule 62(h), “[a] court may stay the enforcement of a final judgment entered under Rule
54(b) until it enters a later judgment or judgments, and may prescribe terms necessary to secure
the benefit of the stayed judgment for the party in whose favor it was entered.” This rule does
not help Defendants. This is a somewhat unusual case in that each challenged management plan
could be the basis for a separate case. If the court were to stay its ruling on each management
plan until the conclusion of all the management plans, it would need to prescribe terms necessary
for Plaintiffs to secure the benefit of the court’s rulings that were in Plaintiffs’ favor. With
respect to the Richfield Management Plan, those terms would be to require the government to
begin collecting the requisite data to support its designation of roads in the travel plan and to
catalog the historical artifacts that may be endangered, the exact work the government now seeks
to stay. Therefore, Rule 62(h) does not provide a basis for staying the court’s remedy decision
pending appeal.
2

DATED this 17th day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

3