National Petrochemical & Refiners Association et al v. Goldstene et al

Filing 84

STIPULATION and ORDER to continue Scheduling Conference from 7/28/2010 to 9/9/2010 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (DLB) before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/22/2010. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 MARIE L. FIALA (CA Bar No. 79676) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 2 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104-1715 3 Telephone: 415-772-1200 Facsimile: 415-772-7400 4 mfiala@sidley.com 5 Counsel For Plaintiffs 6 [ADDITIONAL PARTIES AND COUNSEL SHOWN ON SIGNATURE PAGE] 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION Case No. 1:10-CV-00163 LJO DLB STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FURTHER CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill Magistrate: Hon. Dennis L. Beck Action Filed: February 2, 2010 Related with Case No.: 1:09-CV-02234 LJO DLB 11 NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL & REFINERS ASSOCIATION, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 JAMES GOLDSTENE, et al., 15 Defendants 16 17 ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS 18 UNION, et al., 19 20 v. Plaintiffs, 21 JAMES GOLDSTENE, et al., 22 23 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 24 COUNCIL, INC., SIERRA CLUB, and CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, 25 Defendants-Intervenors, 26 27 And Other Related Intervenor Actions 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Case No. 1:10-CV-00163 LJO DLB Defendants 1 WHEREAS the Mandatory Scheduling Conferences scheduled in the related actions of 2 National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, et al. v. Goldstene, et al., Case No. 1:10-CV-001633 LJO-DLB (the "NPRA Action"), and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, et al. v. Goldstene, Case No. 4 1:09-CV-02234-LJO-DLB (the "RMFU Action"), and are presently set for July 28, 2010, in Courtroom 5 No. 9, at 9:00 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. 6 WHEREAS the Defendants in the NPRA Action and the RMFU Action recently filed 7 their Answers on July 14, 2010. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS both the Plaintiffs in NPRA and RMFU Actions and Defendants have agreed to stipulate to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conferences in the above actions, to provide the parties additional time to meet and confer regarding their Joint Scheduling Conference Statements. WHEREAS additional time to meet and confer regarding the Joint Scheduling Conference Statements is necessary to allow the parties to further discuss which facts and/or legal issues in the above actions are disputed or undisputed. WHEREAS all parties are available to conduct the Mandatory Scheduling Conferences in these actions on September 9, 2010, and have agreed to hold it on this date, pending approval by the Court. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between all parties in both actions, by and through their respective counsel, that: 1. The Mandatory Scheduling Conferences in the above-captioned actions, previously scheduled for July 28, 2010, should be continued to September 9, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., or such time as may be set by the Court, in Courtroom 9 (6th Floor). 2. The parties shall serve their initial disclosures under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than 14 days following the September 9, 2010, Mandatory Scheduling Conferences. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Case No. 1:10-CV-00163 LJO DLB 1 1 Dated: July 20, 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: July 20, 2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Dated: July 20, 2010 25 26 27 28 Dated: July 20, 2010 Dated: July 20, 2010 Dated: July 20, 2010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE By: /s/ Mark Poole Mark Poole, Attorneys for All Defendants SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP By: /s/ James W. Coleman James W. Coleman, Attorneys for the NPRA Plaintiffs JONES HELSLEY PC By: /s/ John P. Kinsey John P. Kinsey, Attorneys for the RMFU Plaintiffs NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL By: /s/ David Pettit David Pettit, Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. SIERRA CLUB By: /s/ Pat Gallagher Pat Gallagher, Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor Sierra Club CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION By: /s/ Jane West Jane West, Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor Conservation Law Foundation 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Case No. 1:10-CV-00163 LJO DLB [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL OF RECORD] Roger R. Martella, Jr. (DC Bar No. 976771) 2 Paul J. Zidlicky (DC Bar No. 450196) James W. Coleman (DC Bar No. 986626) 3 Pro Hac Vice SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 4 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 5 Telephone: 202-736-8000 6 Facsimile: 202-736-8711 rmartella@sidley.com 7 pzidlicky@sidley.com jcoleman@sidley.com 8 Counsel for Plaintiffs 9 Kurt E. Blase (DC Bar No. 288779) 10 Blase Law Group 879 N. Kentucky St. 11 Arlington, VA 22205 Telephone: 703-525-3161 12 Facsimile: 703-525-3161 kurt@blasegroup.com 13 Counsel for Plaintiff Center for 14 North American Energy Security 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Case No. 1:10-CV-00163 LJO DLB 1 3 1 2 3 therefor: 4 ORDER The Court having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conferences in the above- 5 captioned actions, previously scheduled for July 28, 2010, shall be continued to September 9, 2010, at 6 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 (6th Floor). 7 2. The parties shall serve their initial disclosures under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure no later than 14 days following the September 9, 2010, Mandatory Scheduling 9 Conferences. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 DEAC_Signature-END: Dated: July 22, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 3b142a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Case No. 1:10-CV-00163 LJO DLB 4

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?