Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08037/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08037-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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 

Town of Colorado City, an Arizona 

municipality, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United Effort Plan Trust, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-08037-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 The Utah Attorney General has filed a motion to stay. Doc. 73. Plaintiff 

Colorado City opposes the stay. Doc. 78. The Court will deny the motion.1

A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings. Landis v. North 

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Lockyear v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 

1098, 1109-13 (9th Cir. 2005). The party seeking a stay “must make out a clear case of 

hardship or inequity in being required to go forward if there is even a fair possibility that 

the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. 

 The principle of federal comity is designed to “avoid the waste of duplication, to 

avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid 

piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” W. Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA 

Deep Sea Local 24 et al., 751 F.2d 721, 729 (5th Cir. 1985). 

 

1

 The request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 3:11-cv-08037-DGC Document 87 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 In his reply brief, the Attorney General clarified that he does not seek to stay 

discovery in this case, and acknowledged that resolution of FLDS v. Wisan, et al. will not 

fully resolve the dispute at issue in this case. Doc. 81 at 2. Rather, because he believes 

the resolution of FLDS will affect this case, he seeks a stay after discovery is completed. 

Id. Specifically, he asks the Court to stay the dispositive motion deadline and the trial 

until after the Tenth Circuit has ruled. Id.

 As the Court noted at the April 11, 2012 scheduling conference, it agrees that the 

outcome of FLDS is likely to affect this case. Doc. 78-1 at 17. Rather than grant a stay, 

however, the Court set the discovery schedule in hopes of delaying dispositive motions 

until after the Tenth Circuit reached its decision. Id. Pursuant to that schedule, 

dispositive motions are now due on January 11, 2013. The Court will continue to adhere 

to that schedule, but if the Tenth Circuit has not ruled by December 12, 2012, the parties 

shall place a joint conference call to the Court to discuss scheduling. This approach will 

adequately address the Attorney General’s comity concerns, while allowing for an 

efficient disposition of this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (Doc. 73) is denied. The parties shall 

contact the Court by December 12, 2012, if the Tenth Circuit has not issued a decision in 

FLDS v. Wisan et al. 

 Dated this 15th day of October, 2012. 

Case 3:11-cv-08037-DGC Document 87 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 2