Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER 

ALLIANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSUMNES CORPORATION dba 

MURIETA EQUESTRIAN CENTER,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-1703 DB

ORDER

Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has consented to proceed before a United 

States Magistrate Judge. See U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this matter has been reassigned to 

the undersigned for all purposes. On November 10, 2022, defendant filed a motion to stay and 

noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on December 16, 2022. (ECF No. 72.) 

Plaintiff has filed an opposition and defendant a reply.1 (ECF Nos. 75 & 78.)

 Defendant’s motion seeks to stay briefing on the parties’ Phase I summary judgment 

motions, which is due December 16, 2022, the same day of the hearing of defendant’s motion to 

stay. Phase I summary judgment motions will concern the issue of standing and Water of the 

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the Court finds defendant’s motion suitable for resolution 

without a hearing. 

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 79 Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 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

2

United States (“WOTUS”). Defendant asserts that the WOTUS related issue is expected to be 

impacted by a pending Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

(Supreme Court Case No. 21-454).

2

 Defendant argues that the ruling in Sackett will have a 

substantial impact on this case and “requests that briefing be deferred such that this Court can 

consider the most recent and applicable law, rather than being forced to revisit its decision[.]” 

(Def.’s Mot. (ECF No. 72-1) at 7.)

While the Court appreciates defendant’s concern for judicial resources, the Supreme Court 

granted cert in Sackett on January 24, 2022, and heard oral argument on October 3, 2022. See

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/22grantednotedlist.pdf. Defendant did not file the motion 

to stay until November 10, 2022. (ECF No. 72.) 

In reply, defendant argues that “[a]fter briefing and oral arguments before the Supreme 

Court . . . established that the issues being considered went beyond wetland delineation, 

Defendant pursued” a stay. (Reply (ECF No. 78) at 4.) However, the current December 16, 2022 

deadline for Phase I briefing was not unilaterally imposed by the Court. Instead, it was set 

pursuant to the parties’ stipulation filed on October 10, 2022— after the Supreme Court received 

briefing and heard oral argument in Sackett. (ECF No. 67.) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s November 10, 2022 motion to stay (ECF No. 72) is denied; and

2. The December 16, 2022, hearing is vacated.

Dated: December 11, 2022

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.consent/coastkeeper1703.stay.den.ord

2 Defendant’s motion also refers to “Mandatory Settlement Conference[s]” in this action. (ECF 

No. 72-1) at 3.) However, a settlement conferences was set “[p]ursuant to the parties’ 

communication with the court,” requesting a settlement conference. (ECF No. 25.) Another 

settlement conference was set pursuant to the parties’ stipulation requesting a second settlement 

conference. (ECF No. 64.) 

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 79 Filed 12/12/22 Page 2 of 2