James S. Grill v. United States of America

Opinion

Jeffrey W. McCoy (Cal. Bar 317377) PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 1745 Shea Center dr., suite 400 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (916)419-7111 jmccoy@pacificlegal.org Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES S. GRILL, No. 2:20-cv-641-TLN-JDP Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO STAY v. PROCEEDINGS; ORDER Defendant. The parties respectfully move to stay proceedings in this case for a period of 60 days. This request is made for good cause as follows: 1. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint to Quiet Title to an Easement to Real Property on April 1, 2020. ECF No. 1. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss the Complaint. ECF No. 10. 2. Adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 25), this Court dismissed the complaint on November 30, 2021. ECF No. 32. 3. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this Court’s decision granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the United States Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152, 165 (2023). ECF No. 37. The mandate issued on February 14, 2025. ECF No. 38. 4. Defendant and Plaintiff, who was then proceeding pro se, conferred and agreed that it could be advantageous to explore whether it is possible to resolve this case outside of court and initiated discussions during the week May 27 – May 30. To allow them to focus their efforts on potential resolution of the claims, the parties stipulated and agreed, with the Court’s consent, to stay proceedings for a period of 30 days. ECF Nos. 41, 42. 5. Plaintiff subsequently retained counsel in this case. See ECF Nos. 43, 44. 6. The parties stipulated and agreed to an additional stay of proceedings for a period of 60 days to allow them to explore potential resolution of the claims. ECF No. 46. 7. This Court granted the stay on July 8 and ordered the parties to submit a join status report within 60 days. ECF No. 47. 8. Due to the attorneys’ work schedules, the parties have not been able to reach a settlement agreement, but agree that it could be advantageous for the parties to continue their discussions as to whether it is possible to resolve this case outside of court. The parties accordingly stipulate and agree that an additional stay of proceedings for a period of 60 days would be appropriate to allow them to explore potential resolution of the claims. 9. If the claims are not otherwise resolved within 60 days of the Court’s order adopting this stipulation, the parties shall submit a joint status report with a proposed deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint. For all the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter a stay for a period of 60 days to allow them to continue discussion potential resolution of the claims in this case. Dated: September 8, 2025

/s/ Jeffrey W. McCoy Jeffrey W. McCoy (Cal. Bar 317377) PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 1745 Shea Center dr., suite 400 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 (916) 419-7111 jmccoy@pacificlegal.org Attorney for Plaintiff

Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division

/s/ Sean C. Duffy SEAN C. DUFFY Trial Attorney (NY Bar No. 4103131) Natural Resources Section 150 M Street NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 305-0445 sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendant

Pursuant to the above stipulation and for good cause, the Court hereby stays this case for 60 days. If the claims are not otherwise resolved within 60 days of the Court’s order adopting this stipulation, the parties shall submit a joint status report with a proposed deadline for Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 8, 2025