United States District Court, D. Nevada
TCA PROPERTIES, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and GAS PROPERTIES, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiffs,
FJ MANAGEMENT, INC., a Utah corporation formerly known as Flying J. Inc., Defendant.
HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is the parties' sixth stipulation and order
extending time. ECF No. 88. Also before the court are
plaintiffs TCA Properties, LLC (“TCA”) and Gas
Properties, LLC's (“Gas”) (collectively
“plaintiffs”) second renewed motion for partial
summary judgment (ECF No. 69) and defendant FJ Management
Inc.'s (“FJM”) cross-motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 75).
a breach of contract action between plaintiffs and FJM
arising from a dispute over the interpretation and
application of a grading and easement contract
parties in this suit are the owners of three separate but
adjoining parcels of undeveloped property running parallel to
Interstate 80 (“I-80") on the south side of the
interstate and directly west of Robb Drive in Reno, Nevada.
Defendant FJM's 40-acre parcel abuts I-80 and is adjacent
to Robb Drive at the I-80 and Robb Drive interchange
(“Robb Drive interchange”). FJM acquired the
property in 2004 in order to build a truck stop. In 2005, FJM
purchased from the State of Nevada a break in control of
access and abutter's rights for the thin strip of land
between the FJM property and Robb Drive. As a result of this
contract, FJM gained an access easement to Robb Drive from
the FJM property that included the right to develop an
intersection from the property onto Robb Drive. In 2008, FJM
filed bankruptcy and abandoned its plan for a truck stop. At
this time, there is no developed intersection or roadway
access to Robb Drive from the FJM property.
TCA's property directly abuts FJM's property to the
west and plaintiff Gas' property directly abuts TCA's
property. Both properties border I-80 but do not have access
to either I-80 or Robb Drive. Rather, the only access to
plaintiffs' parcels is through LeRoy Street which is not
a major egress point for vehicles, but does provide both
properties with access to public utilities.
hope of improving the value of all properties, the parties
entered into the aforementioned Grading Agreement in March
2012. Pursuant to the Grading Agreement, plaintiffs agreed to
move approximately 600, 000 cubic yards of earth from the FJM
property onto the TCA property. The removal of the overburden
from the FJM property would bring that property to a surface
elevation consistent with the existing Robb Drive
interchange. The overburden would then be used on the TCA
property to fill a large canyon that dissects the property.
As a result of this mass grading all three properties would
be brought to the same level and create a “super
pad” that would allow for the eventual development of
all the properties. In exchange for the grading of its
property and an easement across plaintiffs' properties
for public utilities, defendant FJM was to convey to
plaintiffs a “right of way for access” across its
property and the purchased abutter's rights to Robb
suit arose in 2013 when FJM allegedly anticipatorily breached
the Grading Agreement by refusing to fund and build an
intersection on its property that would provide plaintiffs
with improved access onto Robb Drive. On March 31, 2014,
plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint against FJM
alleging five causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2)
breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair
dealing; (3) specific performance; (4) fraud in the
inducement; and (5) declaratory relief. ECF No. 1., Ex. A. On
August 10, 2015, plaintiffs' filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on their claims for breach of contract,
specific performance, and declaratory relief. ECF No. 51. In
response, FJM filed a cross-motion motion for partial summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief.
ECF No. 55. On March 22, 2016, the court issued an order
denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
and granting FJM's cross-motion for partial summary
judgment. ECF No. 63.
August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second renewed motion for
summary judgment or, in the alternative, for clarification.
ECF No. 69. In response, on September 19, 2016, FJM filed its
own cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 75. Since the
filing of the parties' cross-motions, the parties have
filed five (5) separate stipulations for extensions of time
to file response briefs to the motions. See ECF Nos.
76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86. The court granted all five
stipulations extending the deadline to file responses from
the fall of 2016 until March 6, 2017. See ECF Nos.
77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87. In granting the last stipulation, the
court specifically ordered that no further extensions shall
March 6, 2017, the deadline for responsive briefing to the
motions for summary judgment, the parties filed the present
sixth stipulation for extension of time seeking an extension
on the response deadline well into April 2017. ECF No. 88. In
their stipulation, the parties contend that they have reached
a tentative settlement, but that the settlement agreement
will take more time to complete. The court recognizes the
time and energy the parties have spent on reaching the
settlement. But, the court also recognizes that there have
been pending motions on the court's docket for over six
(6) months with no response. The court finds that the
appropriate action at this time is to deny the pending
motions for summary judgment without prejudice. This action
will allow the parties time to work on the settlement and
complete all necessary documentation without the need to ask
the court for additional continuances and extensions of time
while at the same time clearing the court's docket of
pending motions that cannot be /// addressed. In the event
the proposed settlement should break down, the court will
allow refiling of the subject motions.
THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' sixth stipulation for
an extension of time (ECF No. 88) is DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' second renewed motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) and defendant's
cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 75) are DENIED
FURTHER ORDERED that in the event settlement shall not be
finalized within thirty (30) days after the entry of this
order, the parties shall file a joint status report
disclosing their settlement progress over the preceding month
and any requested further action by the court.