The City of Elko v. Ville 837 LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00214
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 THE CITY OF ELKO, Case No. 3:24-cv-00214-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff, ORDER 7 v. (ECF No. 22) 8 VILLE 837, LLC,

9 Defendant. 10 Plaintiff City of Elko sued Defendant developer Ville 837 for violating a 11 Nevada public-nuisance statute. Defendant seeks to stay proceedings while they 12 exhaust an administrative remedy for a compulsory counterclaim. 13 I. Background & Analysis 14 Defendant sought to stay proceedings for 90 days to exhaust an 15 administrative remedy for a compulsory counterclaim in June 2024. (ECF No. 16 22.) Several months have passed without an update about Defendant’s efforts to 17 exhaust. 18 Equitable factors and Defendant’s long period without a status update 19 require the Court to deny Defendant’s motion for a stay. “The proponent of a stay 20 bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708. 21 When deciding whether to issue a stay, the Court considers the possible damage 22 which may result from the granting of a stay; the hardship or inequity which a 23 party may suffer in being required to go forward; and the orderly course of justice 24 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 25 questions of law. In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 100 F.4th 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 26 2024) (citing Ernest Bock, LLC v. Steelman, 76 F.4th 827, 842 (9th Cir. 2023)). 27 Plaintiff points to possible damage arising out of delay from Defendant’s alleged 28 failure to abate their nuisance property. (ECF No. 28.) Defendant’s failure to 1 || update the Court about its administrative exhaustion suggests that the stay 2 || would not cause Defendant great hardship or inequity. (See ECF No. 22.) Delaying 3 || disposition about an alleged public nuisance could result in damage to the parties 4 || by complicating legal issues and proof, and further delay may also affect the 5 || Court’s ability to effectively manage its docket. See In re PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 6 || 100 F.4th at 1085. 7 Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to stay and orders the 8 || parties to provide a status update within 30 days of entry of this order. 9 Il. Conclusion 10 Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 22). 11 Further, the Court orders the parties to provide a status update within 30 12 || days of entry of this order. 13 14 Dated this 18th day of February, 2025. 15 1 Dosact Der 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28