Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02665/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02665-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

National Lending Group, )

L.L.C., )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 05-2665 CIV PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Lillia M. Vannett, in her )

capacity as Chief, National )

Licensing Center, a Division )

of the Bureau of Alcohol, )

Tobacco, Firearms & )

Explosives, )

)

Defendant. ) )

On September 6, 2005, Plaintiff National Lending Group, L.L.C.

filed a motion for a writ of mandamus in this case. Motion for

Writ (doc. 6). In its motion, Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus

compelling "Defendant Vannett and/or her successor-in-title to

immediately issue Plaintiff's Federal firearms license[.]" Id. at

6. On November 21, 2005, Plaintiff requested entry of default

against Defendant. Request (doc. 7). The Clerk of the Court

entered default on November 30, 2005. Entry of Default (doc. 8). 

Case 2:05-cv-02665-RCB Document 20 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Thereafter, on December 21, 2005, Defendant filed a motion

requesting that the Court set aside the entry of default. Motion

to Set Aside (doc. 9). Plaintiff concedes that the entry of

default should be set aside. Resp. (doc. 11) at 4.

On January 20, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this

matter. Motion to Dismiss & Memo. (docs. 12 & 13). Specifically,

Defendant argues that this case is moot because, subsequent to the

filing of the complaint in this matter, Plaintiff's application for

a firearms license was denied. Memo. (doc. 13) at 2. Again,

Plaintiff concedes that Defendant's argument is "technically

correct" and that the matter is moot. Resp. (doc. 16) at 2. 

However, Plaintiff requests that the Court, instead of dismissing

this case, "stay the proceedings in this matter for a period of six

(6) months, thereby permitting Plaintiff to complete its

administrative remedies and, if appropriate, to use this case for

judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act." Id.

Plaintiff asserts that it "should not be required to expend [the

costs and expense to file its complaint] a second time to appeal an

administrative hearing officer's decision." Id.

Although Defendant states that it would suffer no real

prejudice if the stay is granted, it opposes such a stay, arguing

that it would hinder the Court's calendar and case management. 

Reply (doc. 17) at 1. Additionally, Defendant asserts that

Plaintiff's request should be denied, because the current matter

and any potential litigation in the future would be based on

different statutes and, thus, would be different. Id. at 2. The

Court agrees.

The Court shall deny Plaintiff's request for a stay. Any

Case 2:05-cv-02665-RCB Document 20 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

potential litigation in the future must be commenced with the

filing of a new law suit.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to set aside the entry

of default (doc. 9) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (doc.

12) is GRANTED. 

DATED this 4th day of April, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:05-cv-02665-RCB Document 20 Filed 04/04/06 Page 3 of 3