San Luis Unit Food Producers, et al v. United States of America, et al

Filing 16

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 02/03/2010. Dispositive Motions due by 2/22/2010; Oppositions due by 3/22/2010; Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2010 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. (Flores, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. I. Date of Scheduling Conference. February 3, 2010. Appearances Of Counsel. Smiland & Chester by William M. Smiland, Esq., and Theodore 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, SAN LUIS UNIT FOOD PRODUCERS; EL DORADO FARMS; LAGUNA EXCELSIOR FARMS LLC; JLK; RYAN FAMILY FARMS LP; MARLU FARMS; SIMCOT FARMS; BRAD GLEASON; ROSS ALLEN; CALIFORNIA PISTACHIO LLC; DOUBLE B. FARMS; BUSTER ALLEN, INC.; TURK STATION LLC; C.S. STEFANOPOULOS; ELENA STEFANOPOULOS; D.D. STEFANOPOULOS; PAGONA STEFANOPOULOS; UNIVERSAL LAND CO.; CORT BLACKBURN; LAURA BLACKBURN; MC FARMS LLC; MARTY ACQUISTAPACE; CURTIS STUBBLEFIELD, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-1871 OWW SMS SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Cross-Dispositive Motions Filing Deadline: 2/22/10 Oppositions Filing Deadline: 3/22/10 Replies Filing Deadline: 4/5/10 Cross-Dispositive Motions Hearing Date: 4/26/10 11:00 Ctrm. 3 (extended time reserved) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

A. Chester, Jr., Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. David B. Glazer, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. III. Summary of Pleadings. 1. This action arises out of the San Luis Unit (the The Plaintiffs

"Unit") of the Central Valley Project ("CVP").

are 22 landowners and water users in the Unit and an unincorporated association; the Defendants are the United States, the Department of the Interior ("Interior"), and the Bureau of Reclamation (the "Bureau"). Plaintiffs assert in their complaint

15 claims for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. Each such claim alleges that Defendants have a mandatory statutory duty under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (the "1902 Act"), as amended, the CVP Authorization Act of 1937 (the "1937 Act"), as amended, or the San Luis Unit Authorization Act of 1960 (the "1960 Act"). Each claim charges that Defendants are Each claim seeks declaratory relief that It also

violating such duty.

Defendants possess such a duty and are violating it. seeks mandatory injunctive relief.

Five of the claims for relief

allege mandatory statutory duties to operate the CVP and Unit irrigation facilities; four claims allege duties to exercise the project water rights; six claims allege duties to sell the water to recoup project costs. 2. Defendants deny that they owe Plaintiffs, or have

breached, any of the duties Plaintiffs allege are mandatory duties imposed on Defendants. To the extent that Plaintiffs'

allegations are construed to state more than legal conclusions, Defendants have either admitted, denied, or pled insufficient knowledge as to each such allegation. 2 Defendants deny that

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

Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief or injunctive relief. Defendants plead six defenses in response to some or all

of Plaintiffs' claims: lack of jurisdiction; sovereign immunity; failure to state a claim for relief; statute of limitations; laches; failure to exhaust administration remedies. IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings. 1. pleadings. V. Factual Summary. A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further The parties do not presently intend to amend the

Proceedings. 1. Plaintiffs are farming entities that claim rights

under the Reclamation laws of the United States. 2. Defendants, United States of America and its

Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation, are claimed to have statutory duties regarding the delivery and administration of water claimed by Plaintiffs. B. Contested Facts. 1. Defendants contest that they owe Plaintiffs, or At this point,

have violated, the duties that Plaintiffs allege.

Defendants do not know what the factual predicates of Plaintiffs' claims are. 2. Plaintiffs contest the factual predicates of

Defendants' defenses, including laches and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 3. /// /// 3 All remaining legal issues are contested.

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

VI.

Legal Issues. A. Uncontested. 1. The issue of jurisdiction is disputed, although

if jurisdiction exists, it is invoked under the Reclamation laws of the United States and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 et seq. 2. 3. 4. relief. B. Contested. 1. 2. 3. 4. Jurisdiction. Waiver of sovereign immunity. Statute of limitations. All remaining legal issues are contested. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. There are no supplemental claims under State law. Plaintiffs seek dispositive relief and declaratory

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. 1. The parties have not consented to transfer the

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial. VIII. 1. Corporate Identification Statement. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information. /// /// 4

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

IX.

Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date. A. Proposal by Parties. 1. As discussed in the next section, the parties

propose to file in the near term simultaneous motions that could well dispose of all or most of the issues in the case. Accordingly, they jointly request that the normally required discovery plan and disclosures be deferred. The dispositive

cross-motions, the parties now believe, can be resolved largely on declarations and matters of which judicial notice can be taken. Defendants believe that issues concerning their alleged

liability, if not resolved by Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, should be resolved on the administrative record, under the Administrative Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and that discovery would therefore not be appropriate. However,

after reviewing Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and supporting declarations, Defendants reserve the right to seek leave to conduct such discovery as may be appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). 2. After the resolution of such dispositive crossEither

motions, Plaintiffs may seek mandatory injunctive relief.

or both parties may seek to conduct discovery in this connection, in which case the parties could make the required disclosures and prepare a discovery plan and seek approval of the Court. B. The Court. 1. The parties agree that cross-dispositive motions

are appropriate to define and resolve legal issues presented by the complaint. 2. Cross-motions shall be filed on or before February 5

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

22, 2010. 2010.

Oppositions shall be filed on or before March 22, April The

Replies shall be filed on or before April 5, 2010.

26, 2010 will be the hearing date of the Cross-Motions.

Court sets the hearing of the motions at 11:00 a.m. and reserves time for extended oral argument. 3. The parties have agreed and the Court orders that

the page limitation shall be suspended for this case for the initial cross-motions. The opening legal motions and memoranda Opposition legal

in support thereof shall not exceed 40 pages. memoranda shall not exceed 40 pages. pages. X. Motions - Hard Copy. 1.

Replies shall not exceed 25

The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to Exhibits shall be marked with

the Court of any motions filed.

PROTRUDING numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can easily identify such exhibits. XI. Trial. 1. 2. There is no right to jury trial claimed in this action. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time: a. 3. Not applicable.

Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. XII. Settlement Conference. 1. this time. There is no need to schedule a Settlement Conference at The parties will notify the Courtroom Deputy in the

event they believe a Settlement Conference would be productive. 2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the 6

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

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any terms at the conference. 3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in advance by letter copied to all other parties. 4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose of the statement. 5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: a. case. 7 A brief statement of the facts of the

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

b.

A brief statement of the claims and

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of the major issues in dispute. c. d. A summary of the proceedings to date. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial. e. f. The relief sought. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past settlement discussions, offers and demands. XIII. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master,

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 1. The parties believe that no bifurcation order is The above-proposed cross-motions may Thereafter, further

necessary at this time.

resolve all or a major part of the case.

proceedings on possible injunctive relief may be scheduled. XIV. Related Matters Pending. 1. The related cases are described in the Court's Order

Reassigning Case filed December 8, 2009. XV. Compliance With Federal Procedure. 1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District 8

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

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto. XVI. Effect Of This Order. 1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is If the parties determine at

specifically reserved for this case.

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent scheduling conference. 2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. XVII. 1. Telephone Appearances. The parties are authorized to appear telephonically for The parties shall be present for arguments

scheduling matters.

on the dispositive cross-motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 3, 2010 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9