MARK L. POLLOT, ESQ.

7227 West Potomac Drive

Boise, Idaho 83704
Telephone: (208) 867-4335
(208) 867-8389
E-mail: mpollot.crc@centurylink.net
California Bar No. 136161
John W. Hoffman
Nevada State Bar No. 857
Hoffman, Test, Guinan & Collier
429 West Plumb Lane
P. O. Box 187
Reno, NV 89504
Phone: (775) 322-4081
Facsimile: (775) 322-3841
Email: office@htag.reno.nv.us
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, and
NEVADA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
NEVADA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, )
et al, ) Civil No. 3:13-cv-00712-MMD-WGC
)
) MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING
) IN RE: INTERVENOR AMERICAN
Plaintiffs ) HORSE PRESERVATION
) CAMPAIGNS MOTION TO
vs. ) DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN
) SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE )
INTERIOR; et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________ )

Case 3:13-cv-00712-MMD-WGC Document 40 Filed 06/05/14 Page 1 of 4
I.
MOTION
COME NOW Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, Nevada Association of Counties and
Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, and move this Court for an Order staying the briefing on the
pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Intervenor American Horse Preservation Campaign (AHPC)
filed on May 29, 2014. Said motion was served on Plaintiffs electronically on May 29, 2014.
Per this courts rules and the order of this court, Plaintiffs are required to file a brief in opposition
to said motion on or before June 15, 2014. A stay is requested for the following reasons.
II.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR STAY
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 15(a) provides that plaintiffs may amend their
complaint without leave of court or consent of opposing counsel provided said amendment is
filed on or before 21 days after the date of service of either a responsive pleading or a motion to
dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b), (e) or (f). Since the pending motion to dismiss was served on
plaintiffs on May 29, 2014, plaintiffs may file an amended or supplemental complaint without
leave of court or consent of opposing counsel at any time up and including to June 19, 2014.
1

Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint on or before said date and doing so has been a
matter which has been in discussion significantly before the filing of the pending motion to
dismiss. Consent of the existing plaintiffs to the amendment of the complaint is required, the
more so because the amendments will involve, inter alia, include additional plaintiffs. Since the
1
Plaintiffs have found no case at this time directly dealing with the effect of a proposed
answer attached to a motion to intervene on the FRCP 15(a) right to amend. It would appear
that the right to amend should not be affected by a proposed answer. Should intervenors or the
government argue that filing of a proposed answer with a motion for leave to intervene does
affect plaintiffs FRCP right to amend without leave and should this court agree, plaintiffs will ask
the court to consider the filing of the amended complaint as a motion for leave to amend. To
grant such leave would be consistent with the general rule that leave to amend should be freely
granted. Boyd v. District of Columbia, 465 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (2006) and cases cited therein. It
would also be consistent with the policy of the Rules of Civil Procedure to "encourage an
opportunity to amend before dismissal." See generally, 2 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's
Federal Practice 12.34[5] (3d ed. 2000).
Case 3:13-cv-00712-MMD-WGC Document 40 Filed 06/05/14 Page 2 of 4
existing plaintiffs are organizations rather than individuals and because this would require the
sharing of information, this required the approval of governing bodies before the framing of an
amended complaint could occur. The meeting to approve an amendment was held on Friday,
May 30, 2014, the day after the filing of the motion to dismiss. The decision was communicated
to undersigned counsel on Monday, June 2, 2104.
The filing of an amended complaint renders pending motions to dismiss moot.
Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006); Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d
1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007)("an amended complaint` supercedes an original complaint and
renders the original complaint without legal effect'"). In the light of plaintiffs intent to file an
amended complaint, it would be in the interests of judicial economy and the conservation of the
resources of the various parties, to stay the further briefing of the pending motion to dismiss.
Without such a stay, plaintiffs would be required to respond to the motion only to supercede
matters five days later by the filing of an amended complaint. If the amended complaint is filed
then time expended on further briefing and/or argument before the court on the pending motion
to dismiss would be rendered unnecessary.
Counsel for plaintiffs was able to contact counsel for defendants herein and counsel by
defendant-intervenor American Horse Preservation Campaign via e-mail. They have authorized
plaintiffs to represent as follows. The named defendants do not oppose the motion for stay.
However, defendant-intervenor AHPC is does not consent to a stay as requested, but would
agree to an extension of time, until June 27, 2014, to file a response to its pending motion to
dismiss.
III.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that good cause is shown for staying briefing on the
pending motion to dismiss in the interests of judicial economy and of conserving the resources
Motion to Extend Time to Respond: Page 2 of 3
Case 3:13-cv-00712-MMD-WGC Document 40 Filed 06/05/14 Page 3 of 4
of the party. They request therefore that the court issue a stay of further briefing until the
amended complaint is filed. If leave of court is not required, then said filing will moot the
pending motion. If leave is required and not granted, then plaintiffs request that a new briefing
schedule be established allowing the United States and any other party to make a similar
motion and coordinating the briefing schedule of all such motions.
Respectfully submitted this 5
th
Day of June, 2014.
Mark L. Pollot
/s/ Mark L. Pollot
Mark L. Pollot, Esq.
7227 West Potomac Drive
Boise, Idaho 83704
Telephone: (208) 867-4335
E-mail: mpollot.crc@centurylink.net
John W. Hoffman
Hoffman, Test, Guinan & Collier
429 West Plumb Lane
P. O. Box 187
Reno, NV 89504
Phone: (775) 322-4081
Facsimile: (775) 322-3841
Email: office@htag.reno.nv.us
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) & Local Rules for Electronic
Filing]
I certify, on the date indicated below, I filed the foregoing document(s) with the Clerk of the
Court using the CM/ECF system, which would provide notification and a copy of same to all
counsel of record.
Dated: June 5, 2014
/s/ Mark L. Pollot
Mark L. Pollot
Motion to Extend Time to Respond: Page 3 of 3
Case 3:13-cv-00712-MMD-WGC Document 40 Filed 06/05/14 Page 4 of 4