JOINT STIPULATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Conservation Congress, by its undersigned counsel, and Defendants United States Forest Service ("Forest Service") and United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("Fish and Wildlife Service"), by their undersigned counsel, hereby jointly stipulate to a stay of proceedings in this case and request the Court's approval of the stipulation.

Plaintiff challenges a Forest Service fuel reduction and timber sale project, the Smokey Project (the "Project"), proposed on the Mendocino National Forest. Plaintiff alleges that the Project will impact northern spotted owls, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), as well as the species' habitat. Plaintiff also raises claims that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act by approving the Project. Plaintiff seeks to have the Court enjoin the Project from proceeding, among other relief.

The Forest Service has suspended operations on the Project and no work has yet taken place. Furthermore, the Forest Service intends in the near future to re-initiate ESA consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the impact of the Project on northern spotted owls and their habitat. As part of that consultation, the Fish and Wildlife Service will reconsider the biological opinion at issue herein regarding such impacts and may issue a new biological opinion. If it does, Plaintiff will likely seek to reconsider its current claims and amend its complaint to revise those claims.

The parties wish to avoid having the Court or parties expend time and resources on claims that are reasonably likely to become moot when the re-initiation of ESA consultation is complete. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully stipulate to and request a stay of these proceedings to preserve judicial resources and the parties' resources. The parties have included in this Stipulation a schedule for apprising the Court of the parties' respective positions and progress to efficiently manage the case.

It is well-established that "the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A court may enter a stay "pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case . . . . whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character," and granting the stay "does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court." Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (stay may serve the interests of judicial economy by allowing development of factual and legal issues). In this case, a stay will conserve the Court's resources, and will allow the parties to avoid preparing pleadings and motions that may well become moot after ESA consultation is complete.

For these reasons, and for good cause shown, the parties stipulate as follows and request that the Court approve this stipulation:

For all the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff and Defendants request that the Court approve this Joint Stipulation for Stay of Proceedings.

It is so ordered.