IN EQUITY C-125-C: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION

Opinion

Pro hac vice (Cal. Bar No. 32675) Pro hac vice (Cal. Bar No. 309797) 2001 North Main Street, Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 977-3304 Mobile: (925) 375-9511 roderick.walston@bbklaw.com miles.krieger@bbklaw.com Attorneys for Defendant CENTENNIAL LIVESTOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN EQUITY NO. C-125 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:73-CV-00128-MMD-CSD WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE, Plaintiff-Intervenor, MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE v. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a corporation, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff-Intervenor, DISTRICT, Defendants, Pursuant to Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), defendant Centennial Livestock hereby moves to substitute Wood Bridgeport, LLC, and Lacey Livestock, for Centennial Livestock as defendants in this action. Centennial Livestock has transferred its ownership interest in its land and water rights, including its water rights in the Walker River, to the aforementioned entities, as a result of which Centennial Livestock has ceased to own any land or water rights affected by the action. The grounds for this motion are set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and on all papers and pleadings on file in this proceeding. 1. Rule 25(c) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Under Rule 25(c) of the FRCP, if the interest of a party is transferred, the action may be continued by or against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted in the action. “Rule 25(c) is not designed to create new relationships among parties to a suit but is designed to allow the action to continue unabated when an interest in the lawsuit changes hands.” In re Bernal, 207 F.3d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting Collateral Control Corp v. Deal, 638 F.2d 1362, 1264 (5th Cir. 1981). According to a leading treatise: The most significant feature of Rule 25(c) is that it does not require that anything be done after an interest has been transferred. The action may be continued by or against the original party, and the judgment will be binding on his successor in interest even though he is not named. An order of joinder is merely a discretionary determination by the trial court that the transferee’s presence would facilitate the conduct of the litigation. 7C Charles Alan Writ, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1958 (2d ed. 1986) (footnote omitted). 2. Factual Grounds for Motion Centennial Livestock is a limited liability partnership located in and established under the laws of California. Centennial Livestock possesses water rights in the Walker River, which were recognized and adjudicated in the Walker River Decree. Centennial Livestock is one of the defendants in this action, and is also one of the Principal Defendants, who are the defendants that have actively participated in the litigation. Centennial Livestock has actively participated in this litigation, by, among other things, filing pleadings, motions and briefs, and joining in actions taken by the other Principal Defendants. For succession planning and other actions unrelated to the pending action, Centennial Livestock recently transferred its ownership interests in its land and water rights, including its water rights in the Walker River, to its general partners. As a result, the land and water rights formerly owned by Centennial Livestock are now owned by two new entities—Wood Bridgeport, LLC, a California limited liability company, and Lacey Livestock, a California general partnership. As a result of the transfer, Wood Bridgeport, LLC, will own 52%, and Lacey Livestock 48%, of Centennial Livestock’s land and water rights, including its water rights in the Walker River. As a result of the transfer, Centennial Livestock has ceased to own any land or water rights affected by the action. This motion is to substitute the two new entities—Wood Bridgeport, LLC, and Lacey Livestock—for Centennial Livestock under Rule 25(c) of the FRCP. The substitution of the new entities for Centennial Livestock would facilitate the conduct of this litigation. Centennial Livestock no longer has an interest in the action, and there is no longer a basis for Centennial Livestock’s being a defendant in this action. On the other hand, the two successor entities—Wood Bridgeport, LLC, and Lacey Livestock—now possess the water rights in the Walker River that were formerly held by Centennial Livestock, and thus they have the same interest in defending their water rights in the instant action that Centennial Livestock formerly had. Therefore, it is appropriate that Wood Bridgeport, LLC, and Lacey Livestock be substituted for Centennial Livestock as defendants in this action. The two new entities will be represented by Centennial Livestock’s counsel, Roderick E. Walston. For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the motion to substitute Wood Bridgeport, LLC, and Lacey Livestock, for Centennial Livestock as defendants in this action. Dated: March 8, 2023 By: /s/ Roderick E. Walston RODERICK E. WALSTON Counsel for defendant Centennial Livestock Wood Bridgeport, LLC, and Lacey Livestock shall be substituted for defendant Centennial Livestock as defendants in this action. A DATED: March 9, 2023. CS Ox United States Mg@fStrate Judge ANAT ATTAIN 4 2.72 CUT MM199 ANID □□□