Laserfiche WebLink
A trial court also should deny a request to stay a proceeding if the stay would promote or <br />facilitate piecemeal litigation. Dawn, 520 F.Supp. at 1197. The trial court should examine whether <br />the parties in the concurrent proceedings are identical, the relatedness of the claims and the <br />convenience of the forums for the litigants and the witnesses. Adolph Coors Co., 89 F.R.D. at 152- <br />53; Nationwide Mut. Ins., 833 P. 2d at 61 -62. Finally, a trial court should deny a request to stay a <br />proceeding when "the subsequent action was designated solely to harass the adverse party." <br />Nationwide Mut. Ins., 833 P. 2d at 62. <br />B. A Stay Will Unjustifiably Prejudice the Hundreds of Objectors in this Case <br />Environmental Opposers have not met their burden. They represent that a stay will not <br />prejudice any party, and that a stay "will conserve time and effort by the many parties to this case." <br />Motion at 1. This representation is absolutely untrue. First, any delay here, where water users on <br />the Gunnison have been waiting for decades to determine the effect of the Black Canyon water right <br />on their water rights, is itself prejudicial. Second, Environmental Opposers' federal complaint <br />reveals that they are in fact attempting to shift the quantification of the Black Canyon reserved right <br />to federal court, an expensive, unfamiliar, distant, and improper forum for determination of that <br />question. The hundreds of parties who filed statements of opposition will be prejudiced if this court <br />allows Environmental Opposers to proceed with their effort. Third, because the issues <br />Environmental Opposers seek to pursue in federal court go straight to the heart of quantification of <br />the Black Canyon right, a stay in this court will not promote economy of time and effort for either <br />this court or the parties. It will only shift a lengthy and costly battle to a different forum, one that <br />12 <br />