Laserfiche WebLink
Granting the stay requested herein will promote economy of time and effort for the Court <br />and parties in this case. The federal Complaint only involves a limited number of the parties to <br />the state proceedings. For the Court and those parties not involved in the federal Complaint, <br />there will be little, if any, expenditure of time and effort on the state proceedings during the term <br />of the requested stay. Other than the usual inconveniences associated with the delay in any <br />litigation, no disadvantage to the parties or Court will result from a stay of these proceedings. <br />Any additional delay in the instant case occasioned by the requested stay would be minimal <br />relative to the case's long history. <br />By contrast, proceeding with the state case before resolution of the federal issues could <br />result in significant unnecessary expenditure of time and resources by the Court and parties. <br />Environmental Plaintiffs challenge the very basis of the Defendants' Proposed Amended <br />Application and request the federal court to find it unlawful and set it aside. If the state case <br />continues without the requested stay, however, Applicant's counsel has made clear that he hopes <br />to submit a proposed stipulated decree, consistent with the Proposed Amended Application. If <br />the federal court were to subsequently order the United States to withdraw the Proposed <br />Amended Application, as requested by Environmental Plaintiffs, much of the time and effort <br />expended by the Court and parties pursuing resolution consistent with the Proposed Amended <br />Application could prove to be unnecessary and misspent. <br />2. A Stay is Particularly Appropriate Since Prior Resolution of the Federal <br />Issues Would Have a Substantial Impact on the State Case. <br />State courts have the power to stay proceedings pending the resolution of related actions <br />in federal court. Caiafa Professional Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 19 Cal. <br />Rptr. 2d 138, 142 (Cal. App. 1993); Proctor & Gamble, 255 N.Y.S.2d at 361 (state court stayed <br />