Club One Casino, Inc. et al v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 18

SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment filing deadline 6/30/2017; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment/Opposition deadline 7/31/2017; Plaintiffs' Opposition/Reply deadline 8/30/2017; Defendants' Reply deadline 7/31/2017. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/11/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CLUB ONE CASINO, INC., GLCR,

7

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

8
v.

10

12

SALLY M. JEWELL, LAWRENCE S.
ROBERTS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,

13

Defendants,

Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment:

June 30, 2017

Defendants’ Motion
for Summary
Judgment/Opposition:

Plaintiffs,

9

11

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-01908 AWI EPG

July 31, 2017

Plaintiffs’
Opposition/Reply:

August 30, 2017

Defendants’ Reply:

September 27, 2017

14
15

This Court conducted an Initial Scheduling Conference on March 29, 2017. Robert Links

16

appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiffs. Joseph Watson appeared telephonically on behalf

17

of Defendants. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), this Court sets a schedule for this action.

18

I.

19
20

Additional amendments to pleadings are not anticipated or authorized.
II.

21
22
23

Amendments to The Parties’ Pleadings

Consent To Magistrate Judge
The parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

III.

Preparation of the Administrative Record
Defendants have agreed to prepare the administrative record in this case and lodge it with

24

the Court no later than May 14, 2017. If Plaintiffs wish to challenge the administrative record,

25

they should consult with Federal Defendants by June 14, 2017 and file a motion to supplement

26

the record by June 30, 2017. Federal Defendants shall file a response by July 31, 2017. Plaintiffs

27

may file a reply by August 14, 2017. In such case, the parties shall submit to the Court a new

28
1

1

briefing schedule for summary judgment as soon as the motion to supplement the record is

2

decided by the Court.

3

IV.

4

Dates for Filing Briefs
Plaintiffs have requested that the Court set a briefing schedule for the parties to file cross-

5

motions for summary judgment. All motions will be heard before United States District Judge

6

Anthony W. Ishii in Courtroom 2. The Court will advise the parties if a hearing on any motion is

7

required after reviewing the briefing. Given the nature of this case, the parties are not required to

8

submit a joint statement of undisputed facts when filing motions for summary judgment.

9

However, prior to filing such motion, the parties are ordered to meet, in person or by telephone,

10

and discuss the issues to be raised in the motion at least twenty-one days prior to filing the

11

motion. The purpose of the meeting shall be to: 1) avoid filing motions for summary judgment

12

where a question of fact exists; 2) determine whether the respondent agrees that the motion has

13

merit in whole or in part; 3) discuss whether issues can be resolved without the necessity of

14

briefing; 4) narrow the issues for review by the court; and 5) explore the possibility of settlement

15

before the parties incur the expense of briefing a summary judgment motion.

16

Dates for the filing of briefs are outlined below:

17

June 30, 2017

Plaintiffs shall file their motion for summary judgment.

18

July 31, 2017

Defendants shall file their combined cross-motion for summary
judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment.

August 30, 2017

Plaintiffs shall file their combined opposition to Defendants’ crossmotion for summary judgment and reply in support of Plaintiffs’
motion for summary judgment.

19
20
21
22

September 27, 2017 Defendants shall file their reply in support of their cross-motion for
summary judgment.

23
24
25

V.

Settlement Conference
A settlement conference has not been scheduled because the parties have indicated that the

26

case involves a legal issue that needs to be resolved by judicial decision. The parties may contact

27

the Court if they determine that a settlement conference would be beneficial at any stage of the

28
2

1

proceedings.

2

VI.

Related Matters Pending
The parties list Cal-Pac Cordova, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Et Al., Case No. 2:16-

3
4

CV-02982-KJM-KJN; Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, No. 2:16-CV-02681-

5

AWI-EPG; and Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, No. 1:16-CV-00950-AWI-EPG as

6

related cases. Plaintiffs also identify two cases currently pending before the California Supreme

7

Court that involve similar issues: United Auburn Indian Community v. Brown, 4 Cal.App.5th 36

8

(2016) and Stand Up for California! v. State of California, 6 Cal.App.5th 686 (2016).

9 VII.

Effect Of This Order

10

This order represents the Court and the parties’ best estimated schedule to complete this

11

case. Any party unable to comply with the dates outlined in this order shall immediately file an

12

appropriate motion or stipulation identifying the requested modification(s).

13

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a

14

showing of good cause, even if a stipulation to modify is filed. Stipulations extending the

15

deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or

16

declarations with attached exhibits, where appropriate, that establish good cause for granting the

17

requested relief. Due to the impacted nature of the civil case docket, this Court disfavors requests

18

to modify established dates.

19

All counsel are expected to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

20

Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California and to keep abreast of any

21

amendments thereto. The Court requires strict compliance with these rules. Sanctions will be

22

imposed for failure to follow the rules as provided in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

23

and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California.

24

Failure to comply with this order shall result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

April 11, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3