Schmidt, et al v. United States of America, et al

Filing 112

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/17/13 EXTENDING time for the Unied States to file its opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
J. EARLENE GORDON
Assistant United States Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Defendant United States
of America

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE G. SCHMIDT, et al.

12

CASE NO. 2:09-cv-00660-LKK-GGH

Plaintiffs,

16

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
THE UNITED STATES TO FILE ITS
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED
STATES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

17

[Local Rules 140(a), 230(e)]

13
14
15

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

18
19
20

Pursuant to Local Rules 140(a) and 230(e), Plaintiffs Lonnie G. Schmidt, Donald L. Manzer,

21

Deborah A. Manzer, Edward Maria, III and Donna J. Maria, all appearing pro se, and Defendant the

22

United States of America, by and through counsel, hereby stipulate that the United States shall have

23
24

an extension of time to and until June 27, 2013, within which to file its Opposition to Plaintiffs’

25

“Counter-motion for Summary Judgment” and Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the United States’

26

motion for summary judgment. In support of this stipulation, the parties state as follows:

27
28
29
30

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSTION RE: UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

1.

1
2

The United States’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion and reply brief are currently due

to be filed on June 13, 2013. See Minute Order dated May 8, 2013, Doc. 104.1
2.

3

The United States has not previously sought an extension of time for filing briefs

4

associated with its summary judgment motion, filed on April 25, 2013. [Doc. 97] Plaintiffs did seek

5

and were granted an extension of time for filing their opposition to the United States’ motion for

6

summary judgment, from May 9, 2013 to June 6, 2013. [Docs. 103, 104] The Minute Order

7
granting the additional time specifically provided that Plaintiffs could file a cross-motion for
8
9

summary judgment. [Doc. 104]
3.

10

On June 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a 57-page “Counter-motion for Summary Judgment.”

11

That motion was accompanied by “Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their

12

Counter-motion for Summary Judgment and their Opposition to Defendant’s SJM,” forty-three (43)

13

statements of “Undisputed Facts” in support of their Counter-motion, and thirty-eight exhibits filed

14

in support of these documents.

15
4.

16

The one-week time limit for replying to Plaintiffs’ opposition set forth in the Court’s

17

Minute Order is not sufficient time for the United States to adequately prepare and file its responses

18

to Plaintiffs’ June 6 filings.

19
20
21
22

5.

Local Rule 230(e) provides in pertinent part that, “[i]f a counter-motion or other

related motion is filed, the Court may continue the hearing on the original and all related motions so
as to give all parties reasonable opportunity to serve and file oppositions and replies to all pending
motions.”

The requested extension of time should provide the United States a reasonable

23
24

opportunity to prepare and file its opposition to Plaintiffs’ counter-motion and reply brief.

25
1

26
27
28
29
30

Although the minute order provided that the United States’ “reply” is due on June 13, 2013, no
specific mention was made in the order as to a filing date for any opposition to a possible crossmotion for summary judgment, as the Court was not aware at the time that such a motion would be
filed. The parties agree that the Reply and Opposition should be filed at the same time so as to
simplify and expedite Plaintiffs’ response to, and the Court’s consideration of, the same.
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSTION RE: UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

2

1

6.

The parties further stipulate that Plaintiffs’ will have to and until July 11, 2013,

2

within which to file their Reply to the United States’ Opposition to their Counter-motion for

3

Summary Judgment.

4
5

7.

No hearing date has been set for the pending motions. It is anticipated that both

summary judgment motions will be heard at the same time.

6
7
Respectfully Submitted,
8
9

DATED: June 12, 2013

10

/s/ Lonnie G. Schmidt
LONNIE G. SCHMIDT
Plaintiff pro se
/s/ Donald L. Manzer
DONALD L. MANZER
Plaintiff pro se

11
12
13

/s/ Deborah A. Manzer
DEBORAH A. MANZER
Plaintiff pro se

14
15

/s/ Edward Maria III
EDWARD MARIA III
Plaintiff pro se

16
17

/s/ Donna J. Maria
DONNA J. MARIA
Plaintiff pro se

18
19
20

And

21
22
DATED: June 12, 2013
23

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
By: /s/ J. Earlene Gordon
J. EARLENE GORDON
Assistant United States Attorney

24
25
26
27
28
29
30

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSTION RE: UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

3

1
2

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
Dated: June 17, 2013.
4
5

/s/Gregory G. Hollows
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSTION RE: UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REPLY AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

4