Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-02496/USCOURTS-azd-3_03-cv-02496-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2409(a) Quiet Title Action

---

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Grand Canyon Ranch, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company, f.k.a. Grand 

Canyon West Ranch, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sally Jewell, Secretary, United States 

Department of Interior; Mike Pool, in his 

official capacity as the Acting Director of the 

Bureau of Land Management; and Mohave 

County, an Arizona political subdivision, 

Defendants.

No. CV-03-02496-PHX-NVW

ORDER

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary Injunction, etc., 

(Doc. 177), and related filings (Docs. 178, 186, 193, 198, and 213). For the following 

reasons, certain construction activities on the New Diamond Bar Road will be 

temporarily restrained until October 29, 2013, at which time the Court will have a further 

hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction is necessary. This order states the 

Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a)(2) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

I. FINDINGS OF FACT 

 A. Background 

 Grand Canyon Ranch is a western hospitality ranch owned and operated by Grand 

Canyon Ranch LLC, of which Nigel Turner is the principal owner. It spans 1,200 acres 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 12
- 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 Mohave County, Arizona, and holds grazing permits from the Bureau of Land 

Management (“BLM”) over an additional 105,000 acres of surrounding property. It 

caters to tourists interested in ranch activities, such as horseback rides, buffalo safaris, 

and helicopter tours of the Grand Canyon. It also conducts cattle and ranching operations 

and provides helicopter transportation between its property and Las Vegas. 

 In 1974, Grand Canyon Ranch’s predecessor dedicated a right-of-way and 

easement to Mohave County for the use of a dirt road running across its property. The 

easement was part of the Old Diamond Bar Road, which provided access to the Western 

Rim of the Grand Canyon and Hualapai Indian Reservation. In the early 1990’s, the 

Hualapai Tribe sought federal funds from the Tribal Transportation Program to improve 

the Diamond Bar Road to facilitate access to a tourist facility the tribe was constructing 

along the Western Rim. The tribe’s facility competes with Grand Canyon Ranch for 

tourist business. 

 The United States began examining ways to improve the road, and to that effect, 

the BLM issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement, which contemplated that the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) would construct the new road over the general path of 

the existing road. The preferred route identified by the BLM had the new road crossing 

Grand Canyon Ranch several hundred yards south of where of the old road crossed its 

property. The government tried to obtain an easement from Grand Canyon Ranch to 

relocate the road, but negotiations between Grand Canyon Ranch, the BLM, and the BIA 

were initially unsuccessful. 

 On December 4, 2003, the BLM issued a Record of Decision granting the BIA a 

right of way across BLM land and approving construction of the new road. Grand 

Canyon Ranch appealed the BLM’s decision and filed a separate suit against Mohave 

County and the United States government challenging the validity of the easements 

executed by its predecessor. The parties reached a settlement in 2007 (the “Settlement 

Agreement”) (Doc. 118-2), which granted the United States a new easement across Grand 

Canyon Ranch’s property to construct, operate, and maintain a new road. In exchange 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 12
- 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 

for an easement across the property, the United States agreed, among other things, to 

construct certain amenities, including at least three underpasses for “cattle/horse and 

rider,” with one underpass being located on ranch property. The United States also 

agreed to build an entrance to the Ranch from the road, with acceleration lanes, turning 

lanes, signage, and cattle guards. In addition, Mohave County agreed to abandon any 

prior easement it held for the old road four years after Grand Canyon Ranch conveyed an 

easement for the new road. The parties agreed that the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. 

 But the United States government did not directly undertake construction of the 

road. Instead, a contract was executed with the Hualapai Tribe for the BIA to provide 

grant funding and technical assistance in designing the road. The Hualapai Tribe was 

given the authority to seek bids, award contracts, and oversee construction, but was 

required to construct the road in accordance with the specifications outlined by the BIA. 

The finished road would be a contract deliverable to the BIA, meaning it would need to 

be inspected and approved by the BIA before the federal government accepted the road. 

B. First Request for a Preliminary Injunction 

 Funding for the road was delayed, and it was not until 2012 that the Hualapai 

Tribe concluded it had sufficient funds to complete the segment of the road that crossed 

Grand Canyon Ranch’s property. The tribe solicited bids and awarded the construction 

contract to Fann Contracting, Inc. Construction progressed, and Grand Canyon Ranch 

quickly became concerned that the tribe did not intend to construct the amenities 

promised in the Settlement Agreement. In May 2013, Grand Canyon Ranch filed an 

Emergency Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 115) (which was granted on May 15 and July 

1, 2013 (Doc. 121, 162)), and an Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Settlement 

Agreement (Doc. 116), which it amended to explicitly seek a temporary restraining order 

and to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing. Those motions alleged, among other 

things, that the construction plans did not include the amenities required by the 

Settlement Agreement. The Hualapai Tribe was not brought into those motions, as it was 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 3 of 12
- 4 - 

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 

not a party to the original action in 2003, and the Settlement Agreement is with the 

United States. 

 After those motions were filed, relations between the government parties, Fann 

Contracting, the Hualapai Tribe, and Grand Canyon Ranch grew more contentious. 

Under the Settlement Agreement, the County abandoned its easement over the old road in 

2011, but, because the new road was not complete, the public continued to use the old 

road after the easement had expired. In May 2013, after the motion to reopen 

proceedings and enforce the Settlement Agreement, Grand Canyon Ranch erected a toll 

booth on its property over the old road and started charging tourists an “admission fee” 

for passage. In response, Defendants began building a temporary bypass road (“Bypass 

Road”) within the meets and bounds of the easement for the new road. The Bypass Road 

allowed traffic to bypass the toll booth while the new road was under construction. 

Grand Canyon Ranch responded by closing the old road altogether, blocking nearly all 

traffic from crossing through its property. 

 Grand Canyon Ranch then filed its First Amendment to Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and to Set Hearing for Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 127), 

arguing (1) that the Bypass Road violated its property rights, (2) that traffic on the 

temporary road irreparably harmed its hospitality operations, which are adjacent to the 

construction, (3) that drainage from the Bypass Road was damaging its property, and (4) 

that the construction plans failed to address the amenities agreed to as part of the 

Settlement Agreement. The injunction was denied because the Court concluded that 

Grand Canyon Ranch failed to show that any drainage-related harm from the Bypass 

Road could be prevented by a preliminary injunction, as the road grading was already 

constructed. Grand Canyon Ranch also failed to show that the Bypass Road violated any 

property rights or that the existing plans failed to address the amenities promised in 

Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 164). Evidence presented on this Application for a 

Preliminary Injunction, however, shows the Court misunderstood the construction plans 

at that time. 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 4 of 12
- 5 - 

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 

C. This Application for a Preliminary Injunction 

 After injunctive relief was denied, relations between the parties deteriorated 

further. Claiming an oil spill, Grand Canyon Ranch cut off the water supply Fann 

Contracting needed for construction, forcing Fann Contracting to slow its progress. After 

a short time, Grand Canyon Ranch allowed Fann Contracting to access the water again 

but disagreements over the construction continued. On August 20, Grand Canyon Ranch 

filed this Application for Preliminary Injunction, etc., arguing (1) that the Bypass Road 

did not meet highway safety standards and was hazardous to drivers; (2) that the 

amenities, including the cattle and horse underpasses, were not being constructed 

according to the Settlement Agreement; and (3) that the new road’s permanent drainage 

plan threatened its property. (Doc. 177). A little over a week later, Hualapai Tribal 

Police arrested Mr. Turner for trespassing off-reservation on BLM property where Grand 

Canyon Ranch holds a grazing lease and he had a right to be. No charges followed, but 

the incident suggested a possible breach of the peace and lapse of proper law 

enforcement. On September 3, 2013, Fann Contracting resumed working with heavy 

equipment and preparing for blasting activities, raising the possibility that construction 

activities were being sped up in an attempt to complete certain projects before a court 

hearing. The Court then set a hearing on the merits of an injunction for September 25, 

2013, one week after a scheduled mediation (that proved unsuccessful). (Doc. 194). 

 At the September 25 hearing, the parties planned to execute a settlement 

agreement concerning use of the Bypass Road and the old road. Accordingly, Grand 

Canyon Ranch limited its request for injunctive relief to problems stemming from the 

amenities promised in the Settlement Agreement and the drainage from the new road. 

Plans submitted by Grand Canyon Ranch, and testimony from the Government’s 

witnesses, show the original construction plans completely disregarded the amenities 

required by the Settlement Agreement and that, despite this suit having been filed over 

three months ago, the plans were not amended to include a version of the required 

amenities until late August. Despite the modifications, Grand Canyon Ranch’s request 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 5 of 12
- 6 - 

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 

for relief also persists because the underpasses, turn lanes, entrances, and exits outlined in 

the amended plans do not comply with the Settlement Agreement. 

 At the time of the hearing, the only installed “cattle/horse and rider” underpass did 

not meet the specifications of the Settlement Agreement. The underpasses are necessary 

to allow wildlife, cattle, and horses to traverse the road without crossing traffic. The 

currently constructed underpass is a corrugated metal pipe, 138 inches in diameter. 

Grand Canyon Ranch’s expert testified persuasively that the corrugated pipes do not meet 

the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Equestrian 

Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailhead, and Campgrounds Standards and that corrugated 

pipes as built and intended are inadequate for both cattle and horse and rider underpasses. 

Defendants confirmed they intend to install similar pipes for the two other underpasses 

and pave the bottom of each pipe with asphalt to create a five-foot-wide walkway. 

Although the five-foot walkway gives sufficient vertical clearance for a horse and rider, 

the narrow path, combined with the curved walls of the pipe, creates a circumscribed 

space with little leeway for horizontal movement. The design leaves no room for 

additional maneuvers should an animal spook or trip, creating a serious safety hazard. 

This hazard is magnified by the asphalt paving along the bottom, which Grand Canyon 

Ranch’s expert convincingly testified is not an appropriate foothold for animals, 

especially shod horses. 

 The Government’s testimony that other similar configurations are used as horse 

underpasses is unpersuasive and is rejected. The only photographic example the 

Government offered in support of its contention—a horse and rider underpass at Papago 

Park, Phoenix, Arizona, is patently different in every material respect. It is a half-pipe 

construction, with an earth footing surface the same width as the diameter of the pipe 

used, creating a wide pathway with a safe foothold. It is difficult to understand how the 

Government could offer that photograph as an example of what it has built and plans to 

build in this case. 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 6 of 12
- 7 - 

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 

Additionally, the grade on the approach to the underpass is seventeen percent. 

This greatly exceeds the maximum five percent grade permitted by the Department of 

Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s Equestrian Design Guidebook for 

Trails, making it unsafe for horse and rider, especially a horse bearing an inexperienced 

rider, as might be expected at a guest ranch. Furthermore, the single horse and rider 

underpass that has been installed discharges horse and rider into a depression that will 

pond in rainy weather, thus impairing entry into or exit from the underpass. The 

Government objects that it would be costly to construct the safe approaches necessary to 

make the underpasses actually usable. This is an implicit concession that the 

Government is not planning, and never has planned, to construct the underpasses that 

good faith requires. Because the road over the underpass has not yet been paved, these 

defects can be cured in the course of planning an alternative underpass. 

Along with defects in the underpasses, the evidence presented shows that the 

promised turn lanes, entrances, and exits leading to Grand Canyon Ranch’s property were 

missing from the original plans and that the updated plans do not account for Grand 

Canyon Ranch’s current configuration, which has expanded since the time of the 

Settlement Agreement. If a remedy for these defects is not provided before the road is 

paved, the immense cost of tearing up paved road will render injunctive relief 

prohibitively expensive. 

 Finally, Grand Canyon Ranch produced convincing evidence that the drainage 

plan for the permanent road would increase the flow of water onto its property, alter the 

natural water flow in the area, and likely damage the old road and ranch facilities. The 

new road alignment runs along the wash, and to save the expense of piping the waters 

further under the road to replicate the natural flow, the drainage plan under-crosses the 

new road at the shortest place and casts the water onto the ranch improvements. Water 

that currently runs into a wash below ranch improvements would be diverted into the 

wash above ranch improvements. 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 7 of 12
- 8 - 

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 

 Moreover, in direct response to the scheduling of the injunction hearing, the BIA 

prepared a new drainage plan two days before the September 25 hearing. Grand Canyon 

Ranch had not even received the new drainage plan by the time of the hearing. When 

ruling on Grand Canyon Ranch’s First Amendment to Motion for Temporary Restraining 

Order (Doc. 127) in June, the Court denied relief, in part, because it believed the drainage 

plan was established and could not be reasonably altered. It became clear at the 

September 25 hearing, however, that Defendants did not have a drainage plain in place in 

June and had only just developed the drainage plan in September. The Government 

concedes that the drainage plan is not fully implemented and could still be modified. If 

the deficits in the drainage plan are not corrected before the new road is paved, entire 

sections of the road will need to be torn up, multiplying the costs to repair the defects. 

Any remedy must be provided before further construction takes place. 

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 Preliminary injunctive relief preserves the status quo pending a determination of 

the action on the merits. King v. Saddleback Junior Coll. Dist., 425 F.2d 426, 427 (9th 

Cir. 1970). The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is essentially the same 

as that for a preliminary injunction. A movant must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of 

success on the merits, (2) a strong probability of suffering irreparable harm in the absence 

of preliminary relief, (3) a balance of equities in the movant’s favor, and (4) consistency 

of this injunction with the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 19 (2008); National Meat Ass’n v. Brown, 599 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010); 

see also Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005). The burden of 

persuasion is on the movant, who must make “a clear showing.” Mazurek v. Armstrong,

520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam). The “greater the relative hardship to the moving 

party, the less probability of success must be shown.” Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 8 of 12
- 9 - 

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 

 A. Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits 

 Grand Canyon Ranch has made a clear showing that it is likely to prevail on its 

claim that the underpasses and other planned amenities do not comply with the 

Settlement Agreement. It has also offered convincing proof that the planned drainage 

system is likely to harm its property in serious ways. 

 B. Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Without Injunctive Relief 

 Without injunctive relief, Grand Canyon Ranch will suffer irreparable harm 

because once the new road is paved, changes to the underpasses and drainage system will 

become prohibitively expensive. Defective underpasses and excess drainage would 

seriously jeopardize ranching activities and pre-existing structures. If pavement of the 

road is completed before the defects are addressed, Grand Canyon Ranch will never 

obtain compliant amenities or a modified drainage system. Allowing the construction to 

proceed without remedying the underlying defects would subject Grand Canyon Ranch to 

gross injustice. 

 C. Balance of Equities Favors the Plaintiff 

 Neither party has behaved admirably in this action. Grand Canyon Ranch is 

justifiably upset by the omissions and errors in construction, but it has chosen, on 

multiple occasions, to intentionally escalate and exacerbate the conflict. It erected a toll 

booth over its road when no alternative route was available to drivers, essentially forcing 

construction of the Bypass Road; it blocked the road entirely for a time, seriously 

disrupting traffic in the area; and it shut off the water supply to Fann Contracting with 

thin justification, forcing the contractor to delay certain projects. Grand Canyon Ranch’s 

antagonizing behavior, however, does not rid Defendants of their obligations under the 

Settlement Agreement. 

 The disputed portion of the road is built on an easement granted to the United 

States by a private land owner with explicit obligations to the dominant estate. The 

United States cannot abdicate its responsibility for its easement or its obligations under 

the Settlement Agreement by delegating the construction of the road to the Hualapai 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 9 of 12
- 10 - 

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 

Indian Tribe. Even if the amenities had not been intentionally excluded from the original 

plan, Defendants were on notice the plans were deficient when this action was filed in 

May, but still took more than three months to add the required amenities. Defendants 

have failed in their obligations to honor the Settlement Agreement and to ensure 

construction proceeds in a way that protects the rights of the easement grantor. The 

balance of equities favors Grand Canyon Ranch. 

D. Temporarily Restraining the Construction is in the Public Interest 

 Temporarily restraining the road construction serves the public interest by 

ensuring the government does not disregard property rights. The costs of temporarily 

staying road construction are minor compared to the costs of reconstruction later. 

 E. Nature of Relief

 Because Grand Canyon Ranch has demonstrated that it is likely to suffer 

permanent and irreparable harm if a portion of the New Diamond Bar Road construction 

is not restrained, a temporary and limited restraining order will issue against Defendants. 

Although it was initially contemplated that any relief granted after the September 25 

hearing would take the form of a preliminary injunction, evidence showed that a decision 

on preliminary injunctive relief should be deferred. This temporary restraining order 

does not function as a final ruling on the merits, but, instead, preserves the status quo 

until preliminary injunctive relief can be more fully considered at a hearing set for 

October 29, 2013. See Northern Stevedoring & Handling Corp. v. Int’l Longshoremen’s 

& Warehousemen’s Union, Local No. 60, 685 F.2d 344, 347 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that 

a temporary restraining order is equivalent to a preliminary injunction only if it “decides 

the merits of a case”). 

 This order will only halt construction that will make it difficult to adjust the 

underpasses, entrance amenities, or drainage system and will last only until the harms can 

be more fully adjudicated at the hearing set for October 29. While the restraining order is 

in place, no paving is to occur over or within one hundred feet of any of the three 

underpasses, over any areas adjacent to Grand Canyon Ranch’s improvements, or over 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 10 of 12
- 11 - 

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 

any portion of the road that would make it more difficult to modify the disputed drainage 

system. That is, no paving is to occur between the existing disputed culvert and where 

the water it now diverts would enter the wash downstream if there were no diversion. 

This limited portion of the construction will be enjoined only until October, 29, 2013, 

when a preliminary injunction hearing will be held to consider the precise terms of 

underpass construction and the disputed drainage construction. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this temporary restraining order shall bind 

the Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other 

persons who are in active concert or participation with them and who receive actual 

notice of this order, whether by service of process or otherwise. 

 IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, until October 29, 2013, or otherwise agreed by 

the parties, (a) Defendants are temporarily restrained from installing any new cattle and 

horse underpasses, or cattle/horse and rider underpasses; (b) Defendants are temporarily 

restrained from paving the new road over or within one hundred feet of any underpasses 

and from paving any area between the existing disputed culvert and where the water it 

now diverts would enter the wash downstream if there were no diversion; and (c) 

Defendants are temporarily restrained from paving areas of the New Diamond Bar Road 

adjacent to Grand Canyon Ranch’s improvements; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 15, 2013, 

Plaintiff shall submit to Defendants its proposed locations and specifications for the cattle 

and horse underpasses, entrances, and turn lanes provided for under the Settlement 

Agreement, and any comment on Defendants’ drainage studies, reports, and plans 

(“Plaintiff’s Proposals”); 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 21, 2013, 

Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s Proposals with Defendants’ comments and/or 

alternative locations and/or specifications (“Defendants’ Proposals”); 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ respective engineering experts shall 

meet in person on or before October 23, 2013, to discuss and, in good faith, attempt to 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 11 of 12
- 12 - 

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 

resolve any differences in Plaintiff’s Proposals and Defendants’ Proposals. The meeting 

may not be attended by more than one representative each from the Hualapai Tribe and 

Fann Contracting, Inc., or the Defendants; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ respective principals and 

engineering experts shall meet in person on October 24 or 25, 2013, to discuss and, in 

good faith, attempt to resolve any remaining differences in the Proposals; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a hearing on the application for preliminary 

injunction on October 29, 2013, at 9 a.m. to address any remaining disputes between the 

parties related to the locations and objective professional construction standards for: (a) 

the drainage studies, plans, reports, construction, and culverts as they may impact 

Plaintiff’s property; (b) the cattle and horse and/or cattle/horse and rider underpasses as 

provided for in the Settlement Agreement; and (c) the turn lanes and entrances on 

Plaintiff’s property as provided for under the Settlement Agreement; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 65(c), this temporary 

restraining order is conditioned upon Plaintiff posting a bond of $50,000.00 to cover the 

costs and damages incurred by Defendant if Defendant is found to have been wrongly 

restrained. 

 Dated this 11th day of October, 2013 at 4:45 p.m. in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Case 3:03-cv-02496-NVW Document 254 Filed 10/11/13 Page 12 of 12