Laserfiche WebLink
otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706. Exclusive jurisdiction to review claims <br />under the APA lies with the federal courts. 5 U.S.C. § 702; Double `LL" Contractors, 918 P.2d <br />at 41 -42. In the federal Complaint, the Environmental Plaintiffs are requesting that the federal <br />court hold unlawful and set aside the Proposed Amended Application and order compliance with <br />various provisions of federal law, which would require Defendants to secure larger flows for the <br />Black Canyon than would be protected under the Settlement Agreement. <br />In deciding whether to stay proceedings in favor of a pending action in another <br />jurisdiction, a court should consider fairness, convenience and prejudice to parties. EFCO Corp. <br />v. Aluma Systems, USA, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 816, 824 (S.D. Iowa 1997). Here, while no <br />substantive disadvantage to the parties would result from staying the proceedings, continuing <br />with the state proceedings, without prior resolution of the federal issues, could leave <br />Environmental Plaintiffs with no adequate remedy for their federal claims, either through <br />operation of the res judicata doctrine or the opinion in United States v. Bell, 724 P.2d 631 (Colo. <br />1986). <br />The doctrine of res judicata "provides that an existing final judgment in a court of <br />competent jurisdiction is conclusive on the rights of the parties in any subsequent litigation on <br />the same claim." Mid - Continent Res., Inc. v. Looby, 877 P.2d 1385, 1387 (Colo. App. 1994) <br />(citations omitted). The Supreme Court has invoked res judicata principles in the past to <br />preclude the reopening of federal reserved water rights decrees. In both Arizona v. California, <br />460 U.S. 605 (1983), and Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983), the Court refused to <br />allow the United States to reopen reserved water rights decrees, though in both cases the federal <br />government argued that it had failed to assert its full claim in the original proceeding. Thus, if <br />the Court were to reject Environmental Opposers' request for stay and were to proceed to enter a <br />VE <br />