Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00677/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00677-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE OF THE FORT

YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, a federally

recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET

AL.,

Defendants.

 No.: CV07-0677-PHX-JAT

 ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal (Doc.

# 91), Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal (Doc. # 92),

and Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Allow Non-Electronically Filed Administrative

Record (Doc. # 109).

I. Motion for Injunction

Plaintiff moves for an injunction pending its appeal of the Court's June 29, 2007, Order

denying Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction and the Court's July 12, 2007, Order

granting in part and denying in part the non-federal Defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff,

pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to preserve the status quo

Case 2:07-cv-00677-JAT Document 120 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 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

-2-

pending the appeal by enjoining the Defendants from transferring any Transfer Lands or

conducting any ground disturbing activities on the Transfer Lands, except as may be necessary

for the operation of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in the ordinary

course of business.

Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court to "grant an

injunction during the pendency of an appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it

considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). The

factors regulating the issuance of an injunction during the pendency of an appeal are the same

as those employed when considering a motion for preliminary injunction. Tribal Village of

Akutan v. Hodel, 859 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988). Under Ninth Circuit law, 

"[t]he standard for granting a preliminary injunction balances the

plaintiff's likelihood of success against the relative hardship to the

parties." We have described two sets of criteria for preliminary

injunctive relief. Under the "traditional" criteria, a plaintiff must

show "(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the

possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary relief is

not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and

(4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases)."

Alternatively, a court may grant the injunction if the plaintiff

"demonstrates either a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in

his favor."

As we have said many time regarding the two alternative

formulations of the preliminary injunction test: "These two

formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the

required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability

of success decreases. They are not separate tests but rather outer

reaches of a single continuum."

Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted);

see also Akutan, 859 F.2d at 663 (quoting Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm's v. NFL,

634 F.2d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1980) ("the moving party must demonstrate 'either (1) a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2)

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.'").

Case 2:07-cv-00677-JAT Document 120 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 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

-3-

At this stage of the proceedings, 

Several courts have observed that the success on the merits factor

cannot be rigidly applied, because if it were, an injunction would

seldom, if ever, be granted because the district court would have

to conclude that it was probably incorrect in its determination on

the merits. Rather, district courts properly stay their own orders

when they have ruled on an admittedly difficult legal question and

when the equities of the case suggest that the status quo should be

maintained. An injunction is frequently issued where the trial

court is charting a new and unexplored ground and the court

determines that a novel interpretation of the law may succumb to

appellate review.

Protect Our Water v. Flowers, 377 F.Supp.2d 882, 884 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (internal quotations

and citations omitted). 

Regarding the "success on the merits" factor, the Court refuses to deviate from its

findings and conclusions set forth in its June 29, 2007, Order. Accordingly, for the reasons

set forth in that Order, the Court declines to enter an injunction pending the appeal under the

"success on the merits" factor. 

Regarding the "serious questions" factor, the Court does not find that either of its

Orders "charted new and unexplored ground" or rendered a "novel interpretation of the law."

Specifically, in the June 29, 2007, Order, the Court concluded, inter alia, that the Bureau of

Reclamation did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic

Preservation Act. As stated in Protect Our Water, the "[r]eview of whether an agency decision

violated environmental statutes does not present novel legal issues." Id. In the July 12, 2007,

Order, the Court concluded that a plaintiff, in the absence of a cause of action, cannot seek

affirmative relief against a defendant under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

To the Court, this statement appears axiomatic. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue an

injunction under the "serious questions" factor. 

II. Motion for Stay

Plaintiff also moves the Court for an order staying further proceedings in this action

pending completion of Plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff argues that a stay will promote judicial

Case 2:07-cv-00677-JAT Document 120 Filed 08/30/07 Page 3 of 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

-4-

economy and prevent the risk of inconsistent verdicts. According to the parties, the decision

to stay further proceedings in this action is solely a matter of the Court's discretion. 

As such, the Court, in its discretion, concludes that the continued progression of the

instant proceedings to a final conclusion will better serve judicial economy. See Sports Form,

Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982) ("in many cases, appeal of

a district court's preliminary injunctions will result in unnecessary delay to the parties and

inefficient use of judicial resources"). Accordingly, the Court declines to stay further

proceedings in this action pending completion of Plaintiff's appeal.

III. Motion to Allow Non-Electronically Filed Administrative Record

The federal Defendants seek permission from the Court to allow them to nonelectronically file the administrative record. The federal Defendants claim that the record is

too large to file electronically and have lodged with the Court four CD-ROMS containing the

administrative record. While the Court will grant the motion, the Court will require the federal

Defendants to file a paper copy of the administrative record in addition to the CD-ROM

version.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal (Doc. # 91)

is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of District Court

Proceedings Pending Appeal (Doc. # 92) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Federal Defendants' Renewed Motion to Allow

Non-Electronically Filed Administrative Record (Doc. # 109) is GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file into the record the

lodged CD-ROMs containing the administrative record;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants shall, within fifteen (15) days of

Case 2:07-cv-00677-JAT Document 120 Filed 08/30/07 Page 4 of 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

-5-

this Order, file into the record a paper copy of the administrative record.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00677-JAT Document 120 Filed 08/30/07 Page 5 of 5