Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Five environmental and public-health organizations sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, federal officials, Holmes Western Oil Corporation, and Chevron U.S.A. over challenged oil-and-gas activity. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, including standing arguments. Before those motions were decided or a certified administrative record was lodged, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking to prevent allegedly unlawful drilling.
The federal defendants asked to stay the deadline for responding to summary judgment until the court ruled on dismissal and the administrative record was complete. Holmes and Chevron joined. They argued that merits briefing was premature and potentially unnecessary. Plaintiffs opposed, pointing to the possibility that drilling could begin early in the new year. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston had already denied the request by text order and issued this opinion explaining why.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the stay. Under Landis v. North American Co. and the Ninth Circuit’s CMAX framework, the party seeking a stay bears the burden and courts balance possible harm to the opponent, hardship to the movant, and the orderly course of justice. When there is even a fair possibility of harm to the nonmoving party, the movant must show a clear case of hardship or inequity.
Plaintiffs showed a genuine risk that delaying briefing could prevent timely relief because Holmes or Chevron might begin drilling after year-end. Although the companies had stated that they had no present plans to drill through the end of the year, that assurance did not eliminate the subsequent risk. Defendants’ need to respond while dismissal motions remained pending was an ordinary litigation burden, not the clear hardship required to justify a stay.
The efficiency factor also did not favor defendants. A stay could delay the very relief plaintiffs sought. In addition, defendants had declined plaintiffs’ offer to stipulate to materials composing the administrative record for purposes of summary judgment. The court reasoned that cooperation could simplify the record dispute, while pausing briefing would effectively reward defendants’ decision not to resolve it. The order did not decide standing, the motions to dismiss, the legality of drilling, or summary judgment. It required briefing to continue under the existing schedule.
Key Takeaways
- Pending motions to dismiss do not automatically justify staying summary-judgment briefing.
- A possible near-term environmental injury can weigh against delay even when regulated parties say they have no current plan to act before a specified date.
- The ordinary expense of responding to a motion is generally not a clear case of hardship under Landis.
- A party’s refusal to cooperate on an administrative record may weaken its argument that a stay is needed for orderly case management.
Why It Matters
Administrative-law cases often depend on sequencing: jurisdictional motions, compilation of the agency record, and merits briefing may overlap. This ruling shows that courts will examine concrete harm from delay rather than assume dismissal motions should always go first. Parties seeking a stay need evidence of hardship beyond the cost of continuing to litigate.
For environmental litigants, the practical calendar can be decisive. If challenged activity may begin soon, counsel should document timing and explain why delayed briefing could make effective relief unavailable. Agencies and project proponents should likewise address record-management alternatives before requesting an indefinite pause. The denial preserves the existing briefing process without predicting how the court will resolve any pending claim.