Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00141/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Center for Biological Diversity, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

United States Bureau of Land Management 

and United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-00141-TUC-RM

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Partial Stay of 

Proceedings. (Doc. 15.) For the following reasons, the Motion will be granted.

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert five claims against the U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management (“BLM”) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) for 

violations of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) arising from the authorization of 

livestock grazing on public allotments within the Agua Fria National Monument. (Doc. 

14.) The four allotments referenced in Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth claims are 

currently subject to reinitiated consultation between BLM and FWS in compliance with 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. (Doc. 15 at 2-3.)1 This consultation is anticipated to be 

completed by April 15, 2025. (Id. at 3; Doc. 15-1.) 

In their Joint Motion for Partial Stay of Proceedings, the parties request a stay of 

1 Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, federal agencies must work with expert wildlife 

agencies to ensure that “any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency” 

does not threaten the survival of endangered or threatened species or harm their 

designated critical habitats. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), (4).

Case 4:24-cv-00141-RM Document 17 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth claims until April 30, 2025, or until the consultation is 

completed, whichever occurs first, in order to allow BLM and FWS to complete their 

consultation. (Doc. 15.) The parties state that they will proceed with litigating Plaintiffs’ 

first and second claims during this period. (Id.)

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 

to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In 

evaluating whether to stay proceedings, a court must weigh “the competing interests 

which will be affected,” including:

the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the 

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 

forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 

could be expected to result from a stay.

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “A stay should not be granted 

unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time 

in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.” Leyva v. Certified 

Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979).

Having reviewed the Joint Motion, the Court finds that a limited stay of 

proceedings on claims three, four, and five is warranted. The requested stay is narrowly 

tailored and will not unfairly prejudice Plaintiffs, who can continue to pursue their first 

and second claims. Additionally, the parties assert that maintaining the status quo on the 

four allotments at issue during the consultation period will not result in harm. Granting 

the requested stay will also further judicial efficiency. As the parties point out, Plaintiffs 

have presented claims related to BLM’s failure to reinitiate and complete consultation 

concerning the four specified allotments. Thus, allowing Defendants to finalize 

consultation will likely clarify or resolve issues related to claims three, four, and five;

narrow the scope of litigation; and reduce the need for further Court involvement. 

Because staying claims three, four, and five will serve the interests of justice and judicial 

efficiency, the Court will grant the parties’ requested stay.

Case 4:24-cv-00141-RM Document 17 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Partial Stay of Proceedings 

(Doc. 15) is granted. Proceedings on Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth claims are stayed

until April 30, 2025, or until consultation is completed, whichever occurs first.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report 

within two weeks of the completion of consultations or by April 30, 2025, whichever 

occurs first.

Dated this 17th day of December, 2024.

Case 4:24-cv-00141-RM Document 17 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 3