California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Butte County Department of Public Works et al
Filing
9
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 04/15/11 ORDERING that dfts shall file a responsive pleading by 05/30/11; the Status Conference is CONTINUED to 07/05/11 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton.; the parties shall file a joint status report 14 days prior. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
BRUCE S. ALPERT (SB#075684)
Butte County Counsel
KATHLEEN KEHOE GREESON (SB#210552)
Deputy County Counsel
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7621
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF BUTTE
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE
11
Plaintiff,
12
-v13
14
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS, et al.
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:10-CV-03203-LKK-KJM
JOINT STIPULATION TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING BY
MAY 30, 2011AND CONTINUE STATUS
CONFERENCE
Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton
16
17
The parties to the above-entitled action hereby stipulate that good cause exists to continue the
18
Status Conference currently scheduled for May 16, 2011, and extend the due date for Defendants to
19
file a responsive pleading. The parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions, and have
20
completed an informal settlement-protected site inspection. The parties are continuing to make
21
progress on their settlement discussions and request this additional time with the intention of
22
resolving the remaining differences.
23
Pursuant to Local Rule 143(b), the parties present the following stipulation for consideration
24
25
by the court.
26
The Complaint in this action was filed on November 30, 2010. The parties previously
27
stipulated that the undersigned counsel for Defendants accepted service for all defendants, with such
28
service deemed effective March 25, 2011.
The parties previously stipulated that Defendants’
1
2
3
responsive pleading was to be filed on or before April 15, 2011.
Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants are presently discussing settlement terms and have
made progress towards resolving this case without further judicial involvement. Thus, the parties
4
also stipulate to extending the date of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference and the Status
5
6
Report due fourteen days prior to such Status Conference.
By order of the Court, a Status
7
Conference is set for May 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM. The parties would prefer to focus their resources
8
on resolving this case. As such, the parties respectfully request that the May 16, 2011 Status
9
(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference be continued until a date no sooner that fourteen (14) days from the
10
11
time Defendants have filed their responsive pleading.
The parties respectfully request that the Court grant this stipulation and sign the order below
12
13
14
15
reflecting these new dates.
SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully Submitted,
16
DATED: April 13, 2011
17
18
/s/ Kathleen Kehoe Greeson
By: Kathleen Kehoe Greeson, Deputy County
Counsel
Attorney for Defendants
BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS, MIKE CRUMP, AND SHAWN H.
O’BRIEN
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BRUCE S. ALPERT
COUNTY COUNSEL
DATED: April 13, 2011
JACKSON & TUERCK
/s/ Robert J. Tuerck
Robert J. Tuerck
Attorney for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION
ALLIANCE
1
ORDER
2
Based upon the foregoing Stipulation and good cause appearing therefore:
3
1.
Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before May 30, 2011;
3.
The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference currently set for May 16, 2011 at 10:00
4
5
a.m. shall be continued until July 5, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. and
6
7
8
9
4.
The parties shall file a Joint Status Report with the court no later than fourteen (14)
days preceding the Status Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: April 15, 2011.
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?