revexupld.201701012.lpd.7y7+r_7!
Defendants consist of individuals and corporations that draw from the R-aquifer. (The Havasupai allege that the Defendants’ use constitutes unlawful interference with the Havasupai’s rights to the water in Havasu Creek, and thus bring this action for trespass and declaratory relief. (.) The Havasupai also request injunctive relief “prohibiting any withdrawal of groundwater in order to prevent any reduction of the flow of the Havasupai Waters.” In response, the Moving Defendants filed various motions to dismiss based on the absence of indispensable parties as well as the Havasupai’s asserted failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (Docs. 15, 18, 36, and 47), are GRANTED. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Plaintiff ninety (90) days to amend the Complaint if during that period the United States decides to intervene as a party Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint that includes the United States as a named party within ninety (90) days of the filing of this Order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this matter on July 18, 2017 without further notice.
What are your thoughts on this?
It has been 5 years.
Defendants consist of individuals and corporations that draw from the R-aquifer. (The Havasupai allege that the Defendants’ use constitutes unlawful interference with the Havasupai’s rights to the water in Havasu Creek, and thus bring this action for trespass and declaratory relief. (.) The Havasupai also request injunctive relief “prohibiting any withdrawal of groundwater in order to prevent any reduction of the flow of the Havasupai Waters.” In response, the Moving Defendants filed various motions to dismiss based on the absence of indispensable parties as well as the Havasupai’s asserted failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (Docs. 15, 18, 36, and 47), are GRANTED. The Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the Plaintiff ninety (90) days to amend the Complaint if during that period the United States decides to intervene as a party Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint that includes the United States as a named party within ninety (90) days of the filing of this Order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this matter on July 18, 2017 without further notice.
What are your thoughts on this?
It has been 5 years. 
