Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District et al v. Lee et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|January 28, 2013
ORDER denying Defendants' 169 Motion to Dismiss Party. ORDERED granting Plaintiffs' 162 Motion for Summary Judgment. ORDERED denying Defendants' 167 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of the Court shall enter de claratory judgment for Plaintiffs Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Arizona, and Headwaters Resources, Inc., a Utah corporation, against Defendants Reyno ld R. Lee, Casey Watchman, Woody Lee, Peterson Yazzie, Evelyn Meadows, Honorable Herb Yazzie, Honorable Louise G. Grant, Honorable Eleanor Shirley, Leonard Thinn and Sarah Gonnie: the Court hereby declares that Defendants (1) may not apply the NPEA t o or enforce it against SRP, the other Participants and/or their contractors (including Headwaters) at NGS; and (2) may not regulate, through tribal proceeding or otherwise, except as provided by the 1969 Lease, the operation of NGS by SRP, the other Participants and/or their contractors (including Headwaters) related to employment matters. Permanent injunction to follow. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/28/2013.(LFIG)
|December 2, 2010
ORDER denying 108 Navajo Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 115 SRP's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply and granting 125 Navajo Defendants' Rule 19(b) Motion to Dismiss. This case is dismissed in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 119 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and denying as moot 127 Navajo Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 12/2/10.(LSP)
|March 11, 2009
ORDER - Pending before the Court is Plaintiff SRP's 91 Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. The Court will grant Pla's motion for reconsideration to the limited extent to make clear that the Court did not order the Secretary of t he Interior to decide the dispute between SRP and the Dfts. Rather, the Court ordered that if the Pla chooses to pursue its action, it must do so before the Secretary of the Interior, as set out in the 1969 Lease. The Court denies the Rule 59(e) Motion (Doc. #91) in all other respects. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 3/11/09. (SAT)
|January 14, 2009
ORDER granting 34 Motion to Dismiss. The case is dismissed in its entirety. FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 54 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 66 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 70 Motion for Summary Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED that if plas continue to pursue an action before the Secretary, they shall provide the Secretary with a copy of this order. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/13/2009. (LAD)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?