Grill v. United States

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 8, 2025·No. 2:20-cv-00641·Unknown

Opinion

ADAM R.F. GUSTAFSON 1 Acting Assistant Attorney General 2 U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division 3 SEAN C. DUFFY (NY Bar. No. 4103131) 4 Trial Attorney Natural Resources Section 5 150 M Street NE 6 Washington, DC 20002 Ph: (202) 305-0445 7 sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 JAMES S. GRILL, No. 2:20-cv-641-TLN-JDP 12 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO STAY v. PROCEEDINGS; ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 The parties respectfully move to stay proceedings in this case for a period of 60 days. 19 This request is made for good cause as follows: 20 1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint to Quiet Title to an Easement to Real Property on April 21 1, 2020. ECF No. 1. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. 22 R.Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Fed. R. Civ. 23 P.12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Defs.’ 24 Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 10. 25 2. Adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 26 25), this Court dismissed the complaint on November 30, 2021. ECF No. 32. 27 28 1 3. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this Court’s decision granting 2 Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the United States Supreme Court’s 3 subsequent decision in Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152, 165 (2023). ECF 4 No. 37. The mandate issued on February 14, 2025. ECF No. 38. 5 4. This Court ordered Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint by May 6 30, 2025. See ECF No. 40. 7 5. Defendant and Plaintiff, who was then proceeding pro se, conferred and agreed 8 that it could be advantageous to explore whether it is possible to resolve this case 9 outside of court and initiated discussions during the week May 27 – May 30. 10 6. To allow them to focus their efforts on potential resolution of the claims, the 11 parties stipulated and agreed, with the Court’s consent, to stay proceedings for a 12 period of 30 days. ECF Nos. 41, 42. 13 7. Plaintiff subsequently retained counsel in this case. See ECF Nos. 43, 44. 14 8. Undersigned counsel for the parties have since conferred and agree that it could 15 be advantageous for the parties to continue their discussions as to whether it is 16 possible to resolve this case outside of court. The parties accordingly stipulate and 17 agree that an additional stay of proceedings for a period of 60 days would be 18 appropriate to allow them to explore potential resolution of the claims. 19 9. If the claims are not otherwise resolved within 60 days of the Court’s order 20 adopting this stipulation, the parties shall submit a joint status report with a 21 proposed deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint. 22 23 For all the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter a stay 24 for a period of 60 days to allow them to discuss potential resolution of the claims in this case. 25 26 27 28 1 || Dated: June 27, 2025 ADAM R.F. GUSTAFSON Acting Assistant Attorney General 2 U.S. Department of Justice 3 Environment & Natural Resources Division 4 /s/ Sean C. Duffy SEAN C. DUFFY 5 Trial Attorney (NY Bar No. 4103131) 6 Natural Resources Section 150 M Street NE 7 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 305-0445 8 sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 /s/ Jeffrey W. McCoy JEFFREY W. McCOY (Cal. Bar 317377) 1] PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 12 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 400 13 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (916) 419-7111 14 jmeccoy@pacificlegal.org Attorney for Plaintiff 15 16 17 Pursuant to the above stipulation and for good cause shown, the Court hereby stays this 18 || case for 60 days. If the claims are not otherwise resolved within 60 days of the Court’s order 19 || adopting this stipulation, the parties shall submit a joint status report with a proposed deadline 20 || for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiffs complaint. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 || Dated: July 7, 2025 Troy L. Nuniy 26 Chief United States District Judge 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grill v. United States, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Grill v. United States (Grill v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilkins v. United States
598 U.S. 152 (Supreme Court, 2023)