Pinnacle Armor, Inc. vs. USA
Filing
97
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 6/5/2013. (Hernandez, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PINNACLE ARMOR, INC.,
12
Case No. 1:07-cv-01655-LJO-SAB
Plaintiff,
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
13
14
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
A scheduling conference was held on June 5, 2013, to set a briefing schedule in this
18
action. The parties are advised that, as District Judge O’Neill set forth in the order addressing
19
Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the administrative record, “APA cases are resolved on cross-
20
motions for summary judgment, frequently with the defendant filing an opening brief, the
21
plaintiff filing a single brief encompassing its opposition and cross-motion, followed by a reply
22
from the defendant, and concluding with a reply from the plaintiff.” (Order re Plaintiff’s Motion
23
to Supplement the Record 24:9-13, ECF No. 81.) Based on the discussion during the hearing,
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before July 19, 2013;
26
2. Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendant’s motion
27
for summary judgment, filed as a single brief, shall be filed on or before August 23,
28
2013;
1
1
3. Defendant's opposition and reply to Plaintiff's cross motion, again filed as a single
2
brief, shall be filed on or before September 13, 2013.
3
4. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed on or before October 4, 2013; and
4
5. The hearing on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment is set before District
Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill on October 16, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated:
9
June 5, 2013
_
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?