Motion to Stay Proceedings and Order Granting Motion District 6

Home Browse Search

f . ,t" The constitutionality of SB 216 and the extent of the authority of the CWCB under that law are both issues before the Colorado Suprernv Court in Case 04SA44, which is an appeal of the Division 4 Water Court de:cree granting the City of Gunnison's RICD. The Opening Brief is due June 21, 2004, although the Appellarit intends to file a motion for a brief extension of time. 4. The decision whether to grant a continuance or stay is within the discretion of the trial court. C.R.C.P. Rule 121, § 1-11; see also Todcl v. Bear Valley Village Apartments, 980 P.2d 973, 976 (Colo. 1999) (decision to grant or deny a continuance left to the sound discretion of the trial court); Trujillo v. Wilson, 189 P.2d 147, 149 (Colo. 1948) ("the matter of a stay of proceedings is one within the discretion of the court"). 5. This Court may consider granting a stay in one action where a second action is proceeding that may resolve the issue. See Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v Mayer, 833 P.2d 60, 62 (Colo. App. 1992) (promote judicial efficiency and prevent judicial efficiency); In Re Marriage of Mowrer, 817 P.2d 61, 614 (Colo. App. 1991) (holding that a Colorado court may decline to address an issue that could easily and efficiently be addressed by an out-of-state court). 6. Thus, if this Court were to wait for the Supreme Court to resolve the issues concerning the constitutionality of SB 216 and the CWCB's role in the RICD adjudication process, this Court would not be forced to expend its resources to address these issues. If this Motion is granted, this Court would not be required to consider motions on these issues. A stay would reduce the issues that would need to be tried, thereby reducing the scope, length, and expense of' any trial. Until those issues are definitively resolved, it would be a great waste of time and resources to try this case in Water Court prior to a ruling on the constitutionality of SB 216 and the proper role of the CWCB in RICD cases. Even the Applicant will benefit from a stay because it, like the Objectors, will not be required to incur expenses trying or appealing issues that wi11 soon be resolved by the Supreme Court. 7. Further, the CWCB has settled Case No. 01 CW275 with the City of Longmont on its RICD application and is close to settlement in Case No. Ol CW 160 with the City of Pueblo on its RICD application. The CWCB is interested in resolving this case by stipulation as weli. The City of Steamboat has indicated that it, too, is interested in pursuing settlement as well. Granting this Motion to Stay would give the parties time to pursue settlement and perhaps avoid trial. 8. Granting a continuance wi11 cause no prejudice to the Applicant. The Applicant has secured its appropriation date by filin? its application for conditional water rights. Continuing trial in these matters for the time necessary for the Supreme Court to issue its decision will not jeopardize that appropriation date. Granting a continuance also