September 5, 2013
RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 4, DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS Plaintiff,
CITY OF EUDORA, KANSAS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DELAY ENTRY OF ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT
JULIE A. ROBINSON, District Judge.
On July 1, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals entered its opinion in Rural Water Dist. No. 4, Douglas County, Kansas v. City of Eudora, Kansas.  The Tenth Circuit subsequently denied Douglas-4's request for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, and the mandate issued on August 5, 2013. In its order, the Tenth Circuit directed this Court to "enter summary judgment in Eudora's favor on the question of whether Douglas-4's USDA guarantee was necessary to carry out the purposes of its organization' and otherwise proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion." On August 6, 2013, this Court requested that Eudora, as the prevailing party, submit a proposed order in accordance with the Tenth Circuit's mandate. In a series of emails with the Court, Eudora submitted a proposed order and Douglas-4 objected to that proposed order, leaving the Court to settle the journal entry per D. Kan. Rule 58.1.
This matter is before the Court on Douglas-4's separate Motion to Delay Entry of Order of Final Judgment (Doc. 499). Douglas-4 seeks to delay entry of the order and judgment on remand on the grounds that its Board of Directors is presently considering a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Douglas-4 has apparently filed its request with this Court in lieu of following established appellate procedure and seeking a stay of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Tenth Circuit. Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2) states that to obtain such a stay, a party "must show that the certiorari petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." Similarly, Tenth Circuit Rule 41.1(B) states that a party must show that "there is a substantial possibility that a petition for writ of certiorari would be granted." Even if it motions were properly before this Court, Douglas-4 does not set forth any of the requisite grounds for obtaining a stay of the mandate. Accordingly, Douglas-4's request is denied; after having reviewed the proposed order and objections thereto, the Court will enter judgment forthwith.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Douglas-4's Motion to Delay Entry of Order of Final Judgment (Doc. 499) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.