Motion for Continuance of Trial and Stay of Discovery Deadlines

Home Browse Search

objected, arguing that Golden's claimed appropriation was for an instream use and was inconsistent with the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in City of Fort Collins. On June 13, 2001, the water court concluded that Colorado law and City of Fort Collins does support recognition of a right for an in- channel whitewater course. The legal issue addressed by the water court in its June 13, 2001 ruling -- whether Colorado law recognizes a category of recreational instream flow rights beyond the limited boat chute use specifically recognized in City of Fort Collins - -is a primary legal concern of the Objectors in these cases. It is this issue the Objectors expect will occupy a great majority of their time and resources in preparing for and proceeding to trial. It is also an issue that the Colorado Supreme Court will soon address and resolve. On July 30, 2001, in Case No. 01 SA252, the CWCB filed its Notice of Appeal seeking review of the water court's June 13 ruling in the Golden case.' In this Notice, the CWCB has listed as an issue to be raised on appeal whether the water court erred in interpreting C.R.S. § 37 -92- 102(3) and City of Fort Collins as authorizing a recreational instream flow right for a whitewater course. The Supreme Court's decision on the CWCB's appeal should soon resolve the issue of the appropriate interpretation of City of Fort Collins. Thus, continuing the May 6, 2002 trial until after the Court has issued its decision may very well obviate the need for a trial in this matter or, at the least, significantly narrow the issues to be decided. Continuing the trial therefore will promote judicial efficiency and conserve the resources of all the parties, without causing prejudice to the Applicants. Accordingly, the Objectors respectfully request this Court continue the trial in these matters and stay related discovery deadlines until the Supreme Court issues its decision in Case No. 01 SA252. II. ARGUMENT. A. Legal Standards The decision whether to grant a continuance or stay is within the discretion of the trial court. C.R.C.P. Rule 121, § 1 -11; see also Todd v. Bear Valley Village Apartments, 980 P.2d 973, 976 (Colo. 1999) (decision to grant or deny a continuance left to the sound discretion of the trial court); Trujillo v. Wilson, 189 P.2d 147, 149 (Colo. 1948) ( "the matter of a stay of proceedings is one within the discretion of the court"). Factors Colorado courts may consider in deciding whether to grant a stay in one action while a second action is proceeding include the nature of the respective actions, see 'A copy of the CWCB's June 30, 2001 Notice of Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 Currently, the Record on Appeal is due in the Supreme Court on or before November 29, 2001. Thus, the briefing should be completed by spring 2002.