Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 58.8 kB
Pages: 1
Date: May 10, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 393 Words, 2,365 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/11542/90.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Federal Claims ( 58.8 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:96-cv-00700-LB

Document 90

Filed 05/10/2006

Page 1 of 1

The United States Court of Federal Claims
No: 96-700C May 10, 2006

APACHE APARTMENTS OF OWATONNA, a Limited Partnership, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
On May 10, 2006, a teleconference was held with the parties to discuss plaintiffs' motion to stay the trail. Plaintiffs seek a stay pending the resolution of appeals in Cienega Gardens v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 06-5051 and Chancellor Manor v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 06-5052. When this court last visited the issue of staying these proceedings, the parties were completing discovery. In its May 2, 2005 order denying plaintiffs' motion to stay, the court noted that the law in this Circuit was sufficiently advanced to allow ample guidance for the parties to complete discovery as scheduled. The court, however, specifically stated that following completion of discovery it would be willing to reconsider the issue of whether a stay was then appropriate. On August 29, 2005, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued an opinion in the consolidated Cienega Gardens/Chancellor Manor matter. Cienega Gardens v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 434 (2005) (J. Lettow) ("Cienega IX"). The defendant filed separate appeals for Cienega Gardens and Chancellor Manor on January 20, 2006. It is clear that many of the key legal disputes in Cienega IX, which are now on appeal, are material to this proceeding. For instance, the proper means of addressing the economic impact of the statute at issue and the valuation date of any potential taking are just two issues addressed in Cienega IX that this court will also need to confront. It would be improvident to pursue these issues at trial while the same issues are before the Federal Circuit. Since resolution of the Cienega Gardens/Chancellor Manor appeals will clarify important legal issues on which the parties' arguments are based, the court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to stay pending the Court of Appeals' decisions in Cienega Gardens and Chancellor Manor. The parties are hereby instructed to file a Joint Status Report indicating how they wish to proceed in this matter within 30 days of the Court of Appeals' decision in either Cienega Gardens/Chancellor Manor. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/

Lawrence J. Block

Lawrence J. Block Judge