Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States Department of Fish & Wildlife
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5329
D. Nev.2013Background
- Solid Rock Ministry filed suit against USFWS and McKelvey alleging property rights, free exercise, negligence, and taking claims arising from water diversion around a 40-acre parcel within Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.
- Plaintiff asserts the diverted water damaged land, structures, and animals and that water rights associated with the parcel predate 1881 and were used for religious and recreational purposes.
- Plaintiff filed an SF 95 under FTCA for damages and initially sued only the Federal Defendants; the United States was added in an amended complaint on December 7, 2012.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of waiver of sovereign immunity, and qualified immunity; plaintiff opposed stay of discovery.
- Defendants moved to stay discovery while dispositive motions (#7, #8, #16, #17) were pending; the court conducted a “preliminary peek” at the dispositive motions.
- The court granted the stay of discovery pending ruling on the motions to dismiss and required a joint status report within 14 days after rulings or a discovery plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should discovery be stayed pending dispositive motions? | Solid Rock contends jurisdiction exists and discovery should proceed to prepare for merits. | Defendants urge stay to avoid premature discovery on threshold issues like jurisdiction and immunity. | Stay is warranted pending dispositive motions. |
| Does the court have jurisdiction over takings claims under Little Tucker Act and related claims? | Amended complaint asserts takings and related relief within court’s jurisdiction. | Little Tucker Act limits jurisdiction and takings claims may require just compensation under Tucker Act. | Proceedings focus on threshold jurisdiction; stay granted until motions resolved. |
| Are sovereign immunity and FTCA/APA aspects properly raised to defeat claims or require dismissal before discovery? | FTCA and APA provide remedies and do not bar jurisdiction; some claims may proceed. | Sovereign immunity bars some claims and FTCA/APA do not authorize suit against agencies or officials in certain contexts. | Immunity issues are threshold questions favoring a protective stay. |
| Is McKelvey entitled to qualified immunity shielding liability? | McKelvey’s actions violated rights; should not be shielded from discovery. | McKelvey is entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary functions. | Qualified immunity is a proper basis for addressing immunity early, supporting a stay. |
| Do the Declaratory Judgment Act or APA waive sovereign immunity in this suit? | Declaratory relief and APA claims could be pursued without waiving immunity. | Declaratory Judgment Act and APA do not waive immunity; FTCA remains exclusive remedy for torts by government. | Waiver issues support staying discovery pending dispositive motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagh v. Metris Direct, Inc., 363 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2003) (discovery protective order when Rule 12(b)(6) motion pending)
- Bay View, Inc. v. AHTNA, Inc., 105 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 1997) (constitutionally conditioned taking and remedies)
- Esplanade Props., L.L.C. v. Seattle, 307 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2002) (takings claims; remedies and jurisdiction considerations)
- Park Place Assoc. v. United States, 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional and sovereign immunity issues in takings/FTCA context)
- F.D.I.C. v. Craft, 157 F.3d 697 (9th Cir. 1998) (FTCA claims and sovereign immunity considerations)