Sequoia ForestKeeper vs. U.S. Forest Service, et al.

Filing 91

ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on February 25, 2011. Motion Hearing currently set for 3/9/2011 has been CONTINUED to 3/16/2011 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. (Lira, I)

Sequoia ForestKeeper vs. U.S. Forest Service, et al.

Doc. 91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ERIC A. LONG (SB# 244147) NATHAN T. MOORE (SB# 268391) PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 55 Second Street Twenty-Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] RENÉ VOSS (SB# 255758) 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960-1601 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER, a non-profit organization, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as Chief of the United States Forest Service, and TINA TERRELL, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for Sequoia National Forest, Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00392-LJO-JLT UNOPPOSED MOTION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: March 9, 2011 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 4, 7th Floor Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill

Complaint Filed: March 2, 2009

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00392-LJO-JLT

UNOPPOSED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff Sequoia ForestKeeper moves the Court for an Order pursuant to Local Rule 230(f), continuing the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Document 86] currently set for March 9, 2011, for one week, to and until March 16, 2011, to give Plaintiff additional time to consider an issue raised in the response of Defendants United States Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, and Tina Terrell (hereafter the "Federal Defendants") [Doc. No. 89 at 1-2.] to Plaintiff's motion, all as set forth more fully below. Federal Defendants do not oppose the requested continuance. This motion is made more than seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date, as required by Local Rule 230(f). The Federal Defendants filed a "Response" to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on February 23, 2011. In that document, Federal Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's motion on the "navigable water" issue. [Doc. No. 89 at 1-2.] Instead, Federal Defendants present a legal argument regarding the Clean Water Act that is materially different from the legal positions taken by the government and presented to this Court when it ruled upon the parties' Cross-motions for Summary Judgment. In fact, Federal Defendants now acknowledge several legal errors in their briefing to this Court that all parties believe have led to legal errors in the Court's Order granting Federal Defendants summary judgment. Specifically, Federal Defendants acknowledge (1) that "[their] prior briefs misinterpreted the case law concerning the CWA," (2) that they "incorrectly asserted that Rapanos held that the term `navigable water,' for purposes of the CWA, includes only relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water," and (3) that they "regret that these errors may have led the Court astray." Doc. No. 89 at 4-5. Upon review of the Federal Defendants' Response and the Court's Order on Summary Judgment [Document 80], Plaintiff requires additional time to consider the government's material change in position and the significantly contrary legal argument presented by Federal Defendants in their Response. Plaintiff's reply is currently due to be filed on March 2, 2011. This motion is not made for the purpose of vexation or delay, but to facilitate efficiency by ensuring that the parties have an opportunity to fully explore a major issue raised by the pending motion.
UNOPPOSED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION

-1CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00392-LJO-JLT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Based on the foregoing, and without opposition by the Federal Defendants, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court vacate the March 9, 2011 hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider [Doc. 86], and continue that hearing until March 16, 2011 at 8:30a.m. DATED: February 25, 2011 PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

By:

/s/ Eric A. Long ERIC A. LONG

Attorneys for Plaintiff SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER

ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: _February 25, 2011_

_/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill______ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

LEGAL_US_W # 67306921.2

-2CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00392-LJO-JLT

UNOPPOSED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION