Opinion
86-CV-1140 (LEK/GJD)
July 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Background
In this 17-year old case, the Stockbridge-Munsee Community ("Plaintiff") alleges that its land was illegally taken by New York State and various counties and towns in New York. In 1990 Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor filed cross-motions for summary judgment in 1991. On May 31, 1991, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge DiBianco for a Report-Recommendation on these motions. While the motions were pending the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991). In 1991 and again in 1994, the parties were asked to submit additional briefing on the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity argument in the wake of Blatchford.
In 1995, Plaintiff moved for a stay of the proceedings because the Supreme Court decided to review Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida, 11 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1994), a case which raised Eleventh Amendment issues similar to those present in this case. On April 11, 1995, Magistrate Judge DiBianco granted the stay.
After Seminole was decided, Plaintiff asked the Court to keep the stay in place. In support of this request, Plaintiff noted that the Supreme Court had decided to review another case which involved Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiff also indicated that the continuation of the stay would be beneficial to ongoing negotiations. On May 17, 1996, Magistrate Judge DiBianco granted Plaintiff's motion. The stay has remained in place over the last few years while Plaintiff's request that the United States intervene on its behalf has been under review by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice.
Plaintiff now asks the Court (i) to refer this matter to a mediator; (ii) to lift the stay for the limited purpose of determining the proper tribal claimant to the land at issue in this case; and (iii) to grant it leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment against Defendant-Intervenor.
II. Discussion
1. Referral to a Mediator
The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to refer the case to a mediator. The State opposes mediation on the grounds that it is immune from this suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The State's unwillingness to discuss settlement of the case suggests that forced mediation would likely be futile.
2. Limited Lift of the Stay
The Court also denies Plaintiff's motion to lift the stay for the limited purpose of determining the proper tribal claimant to the land at issue in this case. The Court will not lift the stay to decide a discrete (and complex) issue which would be rendered moot by a finding that the State is immune from this suit. Moreover, the Court no longer believes that the stay is contributing to the resolution of this case. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has actively sought the intervention of the United States. However, the Court finds that this case must now go forward notwithstanding the federal government's failure to indicate whether it intends to intervene.
The Defendants have tolerated the stay for long enough. Now the County and Municipal Defendants support a complete lift of the stay. Similarly, the State and the Oneida Indian Nation of New York have indicated that they do not oppose a complete lift of the stay. Accordingly, the stay will terminate on December 1, 2003, unless the parties agree to an earlier termination date. The Court hopes that by that time the United States will have decided whether it will intervene. But Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment will be reinstated on December 1, 2003, even if the federal government has not made its intervention decision. Magistrate Judge DiBianco will then prepare a Report-Recommendation addressing the motions, in accordance with the 1991 order referring the case to him.
3. Supplemental Memorandum of Law
Defendant-Intervenor does not opposes Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment against Defendant-Intervenor. Accordingly, this motion is granted. Defendant-Intervenor may file an opposing memorandum of law on or before September 1, 2003.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for an order of referral (Dkt. No. 188) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for an order lifting the stay for the limited purpose of determining the proper tribal claimant to the land at issue in this case (Dkt. No. 196) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the stay shall expire on December 1, 2003, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment shall be reinstated on December 1, 2003; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment against Defendant-Intervenor (Dkt. No. 199) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant-Intervenor may file an opposing memorandum of law on or before September 1, 2003;
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this order on all parties by regular mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.