USA, et al v. State of Washington, et al

Filing 21610

ORDER RE-NOTING ( 21609 in 2:70-cv-09213-RSM) Joint Stipulated MOTION to Stay Subproceeding and for Order to Refer to Mediation, ( 22 in 2:17-sp-00003-RSM) Joint Stipulated MOTION to Stay Subproceeding and for Order to Refer to Mediation ; Noting Date 10/13/2017, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Case No. C70-9213
Sub-proceeding No. 17-sp-03
ORDER RE-NOTING MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS

Defendants.

13
14
15

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a “Joint Stipulated Motion to Stay
Subproceedings and for Order to Refer to Mediation.” Dkt. #22. This motion has been filed by

16

Petitioner, the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, on behalf of itself, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe

17

and Swinomish Indian Tribal Communities. Id. It was noted for consideration on the same day

18

it was filed.

19
20

Petitioner has improperly noted this motion in violation of the Court’s Local Rules.
While these three Tribes may have stipulated among themselves that mediation is the preferred

21
22

action in this matter, and so jointly moved, numerous other parties are involved and have not

23

joined the motion or so stipulated.

24

Respondent by Petitioner in the Request for Determination.

25

Washington has neither stipulated to nor joined the motion. See Dkt. #22. Further, the moving

26

ORDER RE-NOTING MOTION -1

Indeed, the State of Washington is the only named
Dkt. #4. Yet, the State of

1

parties ask the Court to Order all interested parties to attend mediation; yet, most of the interested

2

parties who have appeared to date have not stipulated to or joined in the instant motion as

3

evidenced by any lack of signature to the “joint stipulated” motion. See Dkt. #22. By

4

unilaterally noting the motion as a stipulation on the same day it was filed, Petitioner denied any

5

of these parties the right to respond or inform the Court as to their own positions on the matter.1

6

Accordingly, the Motion for Stay is hereby RE-NOTED for consideration on Friday,

7
8
9

October 13, 2017, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(d)(3). Any responses are due no later than
the Monday before the noting date. Any reply is due no later than the noting date.
DATED this 28th day of September 2017.

10
11

A

12

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26

The Court also notes that while the moving parties include a statement that they have not
been informed of any interested party opposing the entry of the proposed Order, the motion is
unsupported by any Declaration or other admissible evidence supporting that statement.

ORDER RE-NOTING MOTION -2