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)

Download PDF
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?