The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 21cv1749 JM (JLB)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO
13 v.
STAY
14 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SAN
15
DIEGO REGION, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 Presently before the court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay the Case.
20 (Doc. No. 28). Having considered the Parties’ arguments, the court rules as follows.
21 BACKGROUND
22 The instant action arises from an administrative order issued by the Regional
23 Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (“Regional Board”)—Order No. R9-
24 2021-0001, NPDES No. CA0108928 (“the Permit”). The United States seeks a writ of
25 mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 to set aside certain
26 provisions of the Permit.
27 On January 18, 2022, the court granted the Parties’ Joint Motion setting a timeline
28 and procedure for producing the administrative record in this case, settling any disputes
1 with respect to the administrative record, and for the Parties to file their Motions for
2 Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 20 at 2).
3 On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.
4 (Doc. No. 23). On April 26, 2022, the court granted the Parties’ motion to extend the
5 briefing deadlines as the Parties pursued continued settlement negotiations. (Doc. No. 27
6 at 1). On June 13, 2022, the Parties filed the instant Joint Motion to Stay the case as a
7 result of these negotiations. (Doc. No. 28).
8 LEGAL STANDARD
9 District courts have inherent power to stay proceedings. The power to stay “is
10 incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on
11 its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
12 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Using this power “calls for the exercise
13 of judgment, [by] which [courts] must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
14 balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. The competing interests the court considers
15 include “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship
16 or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly
17 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof,
18 and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,
19 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
20 ANALYSIS
21 In the instant Motion, the Parties request that the court stay this action for two-
22 hundred days to provide the Parties “with the time needed to finalize and effectuate the
23 tentative agreement that they have reached to resolve this litigation.” (Doc. No. 28 at 2).
24 Specifically, the Parties represent that they have engaged in “repeated, diligent, and
25 complex negotiations aimed at revising certain provisions” of the Permit Id. As a result,
26 the Parties state they have reached a tentative agreement in which this case would be
27 resolved if—following a mandatory notice and comment process—the Parties’ agreed-
28 upon revisions were incorporated into the Permit. Id. The Parties, therefore, request the
1 ||stay in order to: (1) allow individuals with formal settlement authority to review and
2 potentially approve these revisions; and (2) allow time for the Regional Board to go
3 || through the administrative process necessary to amend the Permit. /d.
4 With respect to their request for two-hundred days, the Parties anticipate needing:
5 ||(1) sixty-days to draft the final settlement agreement and obtain formal approval by
6 ||individuals with final settlement authority; and (2) one-hundred and forty days for the
7 ||Regional Board to complete the process for potentially adopting the agreed-upon
8 ||revisions to the Permit. /d. at 3. The Parties note that in these one-hundred and forty
9 days, the Regional Board must perform a variety of tasks, including: (1) drafting the
10 || proposed amendments; (2) providing public notice; (3) allowing for public comment;
11 || (4) responding to significant public comments; and (5) conducting a public hearing. /d.
12 For good cause shown, the court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion. The court
13 |/agrees staying these proceedings may ensure the most efficient means of resolving this
14 At a minimum, allowing the Parties to potentially finalize their settlement could
15 || streamline and narrow the disputed issues. The court, therefore, ORDERS as follows:
16 l. The instant case is hereby STAYED until January 3, 2023.
17 2. The Parties are DIRECTED to file a Joint Status Report to the court every
18 || thirty-days regarding the status of their settlement, including: (1) the Parties’ progress in
19 obtaining final approval; and (2) if final approval is obtained, the status of the Regional
20 || Board’s administrative process to amend the Permit. The first such joint report should be
21 || filed no later than July 18, 2022.
22 IT IS SO ORDERED. .
23 || DATED: June 16, 2022 Hed - Wkly —
J EY T. LER
Uhited States District Judge
25
26
27
28