Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00334/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00334-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land - Liability

---

- 1 - 3:12-cv-334-GPC-KSC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITIZENS DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION, INC., a California 

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a 

California municipal corporation, CITY 

OF SAN MARCOS, a California 

municipal corporation, CITY OF 

ESCONDIDO, a California municipal 

corporation, VALLECITOS WATER 

DISTRICT, a California municipal 

corporation, HOLLANDIA DAIRY, 

INC., a California corporation, and 

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 12CV334 GPC(KSC)

ORDER DENYING JOINT 

MOTION TO STAY

[ECF No. 371]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay filed by Plaintiff and CounterDefendant Citizens Development Corporation, Inc. (“CDC”), Defendant and 

Counter-Claimant County of San Diego (“County”), and Defendants, CounterClaimants, and Cross-Claimants City of San Marcos (“San Marcos”), City of 

Escondido (“Escondido”), and Vallecitos Water District (“Vallecitos”) 

(collectively, “the Parties”). ECF No. 371. 

Case 3:12-cv-00334-GPC-KSC Document 373 Filed 04/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 3:12-cv-334-GPC-KSC

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

I. Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action in February 8, 2012. ECF No. 1. 

Parties have been working in private mediation to reach a settlement since 

approximately March 2013. ECF No. 91 at 3-4. Based upon these settlement 

efforts, the Court has granted a number of stays from January 8, 2014 through 

October 11, 2016 to allow the Parties to pursue settlement. ECF Nos. 94, 180. 

Since settlement was not reached, the stay was lifted as of February 10, 2017. ECF 

No. 180. 

On June 5, 2017, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(“RWQCB”) originally approved the parties’ submitted report that outlined 

measures that the parties would undertake to remedy the water pollution that gives 

rise to this action. ECF No. 371 at 4-5. Parties now seek to stay this case for ninety 

days until after the RWQCB rules on the parties’ application for a variance. ECF 

No. 371 at 5. The parties allege that this stay is necessary since the magnitude of 

damages currently cannot be ascertained until RWQCB issues its decision on the 

variance application since, if the parties’ application is granted, the cost estimates –

currently at around $11.3 million – will likely remain unchanged, but if their 

application is denied, the cost estimates will likely increase. Id. at 4.

Parties assert that the need for this variance stems from the discovery of 

groundwater wells containing chemical constituents in the “latter part of 2019.” Id.

at 5. The RWQCB told parties that they must resolve this issue of the groundwater 

wells before taking further steps. As a result, the parties state they must make an 

application for a variance to address this issue, but the parties have yet to apply for 

the variance and anticipate that it would be “submitted in the next three (3) weeks.” 

ECF No. 371 at 8. The parties estimate that the process for deciding the variance 

would take “many months, possible as much as a year to complete.” Id. The 

parties further state that “[w]hile the Parties continue to hold monthly calls with the 

Case 3:12-cv-00334-GPC-KSC Document 373 Filed 04/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 3:12-cv-334-GPC-KSC

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

RWQCB, the Parties have no control over the RWQCB’s approval process or 

timeline.” Id.

II. Discussion

A court has the inherent power to stay proceedings. See Landis v. North Am. 

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Ninth Circuit has noted the following three 

considerations that a district court should take into account before entering a stay: 

(1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the 

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and 

(3) “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)

(citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). “[T]he suppliant for a 

stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go 

forward.” Id. at 268.

Parties argue that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies because the 

amount of CDC’s alleged damages depends on the RWQCB’s decision. ECF No. 

371 at 11. “The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or 

to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within 

the special competence of an administrative agency.” Clark v. Time Warner 

Cable, 523 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2008). Primary jurisdiction is a “prudential” 

doctrine that permits a court to stay or dismiss a case if an “otherwise cognizable 

claim implicates technical and policy questions that should be addressed in the first 

instance by the agency with regulatory authority over the relevant industry rather 

than by the judicial branch.” Id. (citing Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip 

Tech. Inc., 307 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2002)). “[I]t is to be used only if a claim 

requires resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated 

issue that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency, and if protection of the 

integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which 

Case 3:12-cv-00334-GPC-KSC Document 373 Filed 04/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 3:12-cv-334-GPC-KSC

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

administers the scheme.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “No 

fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.” Davel 

Commc'ns, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 460 F.3d 1075, 1086 (9th Cir.

2006) (quoting United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64, 77 S.Ct. 161, 1 

L.Ed.2d 126 (1956)). Ninth Circuit courts, however, weigh four factors in 

determining whether to apply the doctrine:

(1) [whether] the issue is not “within the conventional experiences of 

judges,” (2) [whether] the issue “involves technical or policy considerations 

within the agency's particular field of expertise,” (3) [whether] the issue “is 

particularly within the agency's discretion,” or (4) [whether] “there exists a 

substantial danger of inconsistent rulings.

Maronyan v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 658 F.3d 1038, 1048–49 (9th Cir.

2011) (quoting Brown v. MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc., 277 F.3d 1166, 

1172–73 (9th Cir. 2002)). A court must balance the parties’ need to resolve the 

action expeditiously against the benefits of obtaining the agency's expertise on the 

issues. Maronyan, 658 F.3d at 1049.

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have similarly found that a stay exercise of 

primary jurisdiction was not warranted where there was no indication that an 

agency’s decision would be made in a timely fashion. Molnar v. NCO Fin. Sys.,

Inc., 2015 WL 1906346, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015) (denying motion to stay 

where a third-party agency had given “no indication that imminent clarification is 

forthcoming”); Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 14-CV-00787-WHO, 2014 

WL 5359000, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (denying application of primary 

jurisdiction doctrine and denying stay where there was no indication that outside 

agency would rule “imminently” on the pending petitions). Here, the parties have 

failed to show that the RWQCB’s decision will issue within a reasonable time 

frame, and have additionally failed to establish that obtaining the benefits of the 

RWQCB’s decision outweighs the need to resolve this litigation that has languished 

on the Court’s docket for over eight years. 

Case 3:12-cv-00334-GPC-KSC Document 373 Filed 04/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 3:12-cv-334-GPC-KSC

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

Ultimately, the Court finds that the need to resolve this action in a timely 

fashion weighs heavily against issuing a stay. Granting a further stay and delay of 

this litigation nearing a decade in age would certainly disrupt the “orderly course of 

justice.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. 

The Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020

Case 3:12-cv-00334-GPC-KSC Document 373 Filed 04/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5