North Coast Rivers Alliance, et al. v. United States Department of the Interior, et al.
Filing
25
Stipulation and Order Extending Time To Respond To The Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/01/2016. (Yu, L)
1 JOHN C. CRUDEN, Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH H. KIM, Trial Attorney
2 JUDITH E. COLEMAN, Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
3 Environment & Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
4 P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
5 Telephone: (202) 514-3553
joseph.kim@usdoj.gov
6 judith.coleman@usdoj.gov
7 Attorneys for Federal Defendants
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
FRESNO DIVISION
11
12
13
14
NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE,
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, PACIFIC COAST
FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S
ASSOCIATIONS, SAN FRANCISCO CRAB
BOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and
INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES,
15
18
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, and UNITED STATES BUREAU
OF RECLAMATION,
Defendants,
20
22
CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE M. SENG
v.
19
21
STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
16
17
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00307-LJO-MJS
and
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, SAN
LUIS WATER DISTRICT, and PANOCHE
WATER DISTRICT,
23
Intervenor-Defendants.
24
25
26
27
COME NOW, Plaintiffs North Coast Rivers Alliance, California Sportfishing Protection
Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association, Inc., and Institute for Fisheries Resources (Plaintiffs); United States Department of the
28
29
1:16-cv-00307-LJO-MJS
Stipulated Extension
30
1
1 Interior and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Federal Defendants); and Intervenors
2 Westlands Water District, San Luis Water District, and Panoche Water District (Intervenor3 Defendants), through undersigned counsel, do jointly stipulate that the previous deadline set by the
4 Court for answering or otherwise responding to the Complaint be continued from July 8, 2016, to
5 August 8, 2016. This the second requested extension of this deadline. To support the requested
6 extension, the Parties state as follows:
7
1.
This case is related to Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v.
8 United States Department of the Interior, et al., Case No. 12-CV-01303-LJO-MJS (PCFFA). (Doc.
9 10). The two Plaintiffs in PCFFA are Plaintiffs in this action. On March 28, 2016, a panel of the
10 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision in PCFFA that
11 affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the judgment previously this Court had entered for
12 Defendants. See 9th Cir. Case No. 14-15514, 2016 WL 1179953.
13
2.
On May 3, Federal Defendants moved to extend the time to respond to the Complaint
14 to July 8 because at that time it was unknown whether Plaintiffs would petition the Ninth Circuit for
15 rehearing or rehearing en banc in PCFFA. (Doc. 15). This Court granted the Motion. (Doc. 16).
16
3.
On May 4, Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing of the PCFFA decision en banc.
17 (9th Cir. No. 14-15514, Dkt. 56-1). Although the panel had partially reversed this Court’s judgment
18 for Defendants on one of Plaintiffs’ theories, Plaintiffs’ petition contends that the panel’s rulings
19 affirming the judgment on two of their other theories are in conflict with Ninth Circuit law. These
20 issues involved the no-action alternative and geographic scope of the environmental analysis
21 prepared by Federal Defendants that is similar to the analysis at issue in this case.
22
4.
On June 9, the Ninth Circuit ordered Defendants in PCFFA to file responses
23 “addressing only Part III-A (pp. 7-13) of the petition (the no-action alternative issue).” (Dkt. 59).
24 The Court ordered the responses to be filed by June 30.
25
5.
The Ninth Circuit’s disposition of PCFFA could affect the litigation and/or any
26 negotiated resolution of the litigation in this action. Federal Defendants have moved to stay
27 proceedings in this case pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit proceedings in PCFFA. (Doc. 23).
28 Plaintiffs oppose the motion, which is calendared for hearing on August 12.
29
1:16-cv-00307-LJO-MJS
Stipulated Extension
30
2
1
6.
The Parties agree an extension of the time to answer or otherwise respond to the
2 complaint by 30 days, effectively to Monday, August 8, 2016, is appropriate in the absence of a stay.
3
7.
Federal Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants shall therefore have to August 8,
4 2016, to file answers or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
5
6
Respectfully submitted,
7 DATED: July 1, 2016
JOHN C. CRUDEN, Assistant Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
8
9
/s/ Judith E. Coleman
JUDITH E. COLEMAN
JOSEPH H. KIM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
10
11
12
Attorneys for Federal Defendants
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR and UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
13
14
15
16
/s/ Cynthia J. Larsen (with authorization)
CYNTHIA J. LARSEN
MARTIN RUANO
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
17
18
19
Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendants
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, SAN LUIS
WATER DISTRICT and PANOCHE WATER
DISTRICT
20
21
22
23
26
/s/ Stephan C. Volker (with authorization)
STEPHAN C. VOLKER
ALEXIS E. KRIEG
DANIEL GARRETT-STEINMAN
LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN VOLKER
27
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
24
25
28
29
1:16-cv-00307-LJO-MJS
Stipulated Extension
30
3
NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE,
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION
ALLIANCE, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF
FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, SAN
FRANCISCO CRAB BOAT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., and INSTITUTE FOR
FISHERIES RESOURCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
ORDER
7
8
Good cause appearing, the proposed Stipulation to extend time to respond to the
9 complaint in Case No. 1:16-cv-00307-LJO-MJS is hereby approved and adopted as the
10 Order of the Court.
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated:
July 1, 2016
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1:16-cv-00307-LJO-MJS
Stipulated Extension
30
Michael J. Seng
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?