Case Name: ABS PROPERTIES, LLP, a Florida limited partnership, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARK CITY CITY COUNCIL and The City of Park City, Defendants and Appellees. Brad Wilson, an individual, and Lisa Wilson, an individual, Intervenors
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 2005-04-22
Citations: 116 P.3d 289
Docket Number: No. 20040295
Parties: ABS PROPERTIES, LLP, a Florida limited partnership, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARK CITY CITY COUNCIL and The City of Park City, Defendants and Appellees. Brad Wilson, an individual, and Lisa Wilson, an individual, Intervenors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 116
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
2005 UT 27
ABS PROPERTIES, LLP, a Florida limited partnership, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARK CITY CITY COUNCIL and The City of Park City, Defendants and Appellees. Brad Wilson, an individual, and Lisa Wilson, an individual, Intervenors.
No. 20040295.
Supreme Court of Utah.
April 22, 2005.
Rehearing Denied June 1, 2005.
Mark W. Dykes, Colin W. McMullin, Salt Lake City, and Joseph E. Tesch, Park City, for plaintiff.
Jody K. Burnett, Robert C. Keller, Salt Lake City, and Mark D. Harrington, Park City, for defendants.
Steven W. Dougherty, John Martinez, Salt Lake City, for intervenors.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
¶ 1 This matter is before the court on appeal from a ruling of the Third Judicial District Court for Summit County in which it affirmed, pursuant to section 10-9-1001 of the Utah Code, the administrative decision of the Park City Council to amend a plat map. After full briefing, this court heard oral argument on the matter on March 2, 2005.
¶ 2 From the briefing and the statements of counsel during oral argument, it is apparent that at least some of the issues presented by this appeal are tied to issues that are still being litigated in ABS Properties, LLP v. Wilson, No. 020500398, a related case that currently is pending in the Third Judicial District Court for Summit County. It is also apparent that resolution of the limited issues presented by this appeal will not materially resolve the underlying dispute between the parties. Accordingly, resolution of this appeal at this time will not serve the interests of judicial economy. Therefore,
¶ 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is stayed until further order of the court. At such time as case No. 020500398 is resolved in the district court, this court will entertain motions to lift the stay. In the event that a final judgment in case No. 020500398 is appealed, it is the intention of the court to consolidate this appeal with the appeal of that matter.