Motion for Stay of Proceedings: Case No. 2001CW05

• 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

suit was pending in federal court challenging the validity of the notes on federal grounds. The
state court found a stay to be appropriate because, inter alia, "the deciding of the Federal suit to
invalidate the notes might be dispositive of the State actions [and] [s]taying the State actions
would remove the chance of conflicting judgments." Santos, 440 N.E.2d at 881.
In Lanova, 64 A.2d 419 (Del. 1949), the plaintiff brought action in Delaware state court
seeking recovery of royalties under a patent licensing agreement. The defendant requested a
stay, arguing that a decision in a pending federal court case declaring the patents invalid would
"render moot" the issues on review in state court. The state court granted a stay, finding that the
federal action "will probably settle or greatly simplify" the issues presented in state court.
Lanova, 64 A.2d at 420.
Federal courts apply the same standard:
A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the
fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending
resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case. This rule applies
whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in
character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily
controlling of the action before the court.
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 -64 (9 Cir. 1979), cert. denied,
444 U.S. 827 (1979) (citingKerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-0-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180 (1952);
Landis, 299 U.S. 248, 254 -55; Collins Radio Co. v. Ex- Cell -O Corp., 467 F.2d 995, 1000 (8
Cir. 1972); Merritt - Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 387 F.2d 768,
773 (3 Cir. 1967); Nederlandse Erts- Tankersmaatschappy v. Isbrandtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440 (2d
Cir. 1964); Chronicle Publ'g. Co. v. National Broad. Co., 294 F.2 744 (9' Cir. 1961)).
In the Black Canyon case, resolution of federal issues in federal court will resolve issues
essential to the current water court proceedings, namely whether the Motion to Amend and