My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Motion for Stay of Proceedings: Case No. 2001CW05
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Motion for Stay of Proceedings: Case No. 2001CW05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:25 AM
Creation date
5/21/2010 12:48:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison River
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
9/12/2003
Author
Bart Miller, Andrew Peternell
Title
Prehearing Statement of CWCB: Instream Flow Appropriations for Gunnison
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Company ( "State Farm ") filed a federal claim in federal court against Caiafa Professional Law <br />Corporation ( "Caiafa ") alleging fraud in connection with Caiafa's representation of a party <br />insured by State Farm. Nine months later, Caiafa initiated a suit in state court to compel <br />arbitration for unpaid attorney fees. The state appellate court upheld the trial court's stay of <br />proceedings, finding resolution of the federal issues "almost certainly would determine whether <br />Caiafa was entitled to [] fees at all and, if so, the proper amount of those fees." Caiafa, 19 Cal. <br />Rptr. 2d at 141. <br />In the instant case, the federal Complaint seeks resolution of issues under federal laws <br />related to agency decision - making, including the Settlement Agreement, Motion to Amend, and <br />Proposed Amended Application. As in Caiafa, these legal issues will determine the course of <br />further proceedings in water court. And, as the United States noted in its reply brief on the <br />Motion to Amend, federal court is the only place these issues can be resolved because federal <br />courts have exclusive jurisdiction over judicial review of federal agency decision-making. The <br />United States' Reply to the Responses to the United States' Motion to Amend and For Further <br />Stay of Proceedings at 12 (citing Double `LL " Contractors, Inc. v. State of Oklahoma, 918 P.2d <br />34, 42 (Okla. 1996)). <br />3. Environmental Plaintiffs Will be Prejudiced if the Instant Case Proceeds <br />Without Prior Resolution of the Federal Issues. <br />Environmental Plaintiffs presented four claims in the federal Complaint, all four <br />involving requests for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act ( "APA" ), 5 U.S.C. <br />§ 701 et seq. The APA provides that persons adversely affected by agency action are entitled to <br />judicial review thereof. 5 U.S.C. § 702. Under the APA, a reviewing court shall hold unlawful <br />and set aside agency action founds to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.