Blue Lake Rancheria, et al v. Morgenstern, et al.,
Filing
111
STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 10/15/15. The following dates and deadlines, as set forth in the 1/5/15 Amended Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order ("Scheduling Order"), are vacated: the trial 5/23/16; the pretri al conference 4/1/16, and; the 1/13/16 deadline to file dispositive motions; The parties shall file a joint status report within fourteen (14) days of the Court of Appeal's issuing its mandate in the defendants' appeal of this Court' s Judgment in favor of Blue Lake Rancheria. In their joint status report, the parties shall propose dates for the deadline to file dispositive motions and for final pretrial conference and trial; Discovery shall not be re-opened except upon mutual agreement of the parties. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
BOUTIN JONES INC.
Robert R. Rubin, SBN 117428
Michael E. Chase, SBN 214506
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
Sacramento, CA 95814-4603
Tel.: (916) 321-4444
Fax: (916) 441-7597
RAPPORT AND MARSTON
David J. Rapport, SBN 054384
405 West Perkins Street
Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 462-6846
Attorneys for plaintiffs Blue Lake Rancheria, Blue Lake Rancheria Economic
Development Corp. and Mainstay Business Solutions
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
13
14
BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA, a federally
recognized Indian Tribe, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
15
16
17
CASE NO. 2:11-cv-01124-JAM-JFM
vs.
STIPULATION AND ORDER
MODIFYING AMENDED STATUS
(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
PENDING APPEAL
DAVID LANIER, individually and in his
capacity as Secretary of the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency, et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
20
UNITED STATES,
Intervenor.
21
22
Plaintiffs Blue Lake Rancheria Economic Development Corporation (“BLREDC”) and
23
24
25
26
Mainstay Business Solutions (“MBS”); defendants David Lanier, Patrick Henning, Jr., Pam Harris,
Jack Budmark, Talbott Smith, Kathy Dunne, and Sarah Reece; and intervenor United States,
collectively, “the parties,” stipulate as follows:
1.
27
28
The Complaint was filed on April 26, 2011.
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING AMENDED STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
ORDER PENDING APPEAL
737514.1
1
2.
On January 5, 2015, the Court entered in this case an Amended Status (Pretrial
2
Scheduling) Order (“Scheduling Order”). The Scheduling Order, among other things, provided
3
that all dispositive motions shall be filed by January 13, 2016; that the final pre-trial conference
4
shall be held on April 1, 2016; and that the trial shall commence on May 23, 2016.
5
3.
6
(“BLR”).
7
4.
8
On May 26, 2015, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Blue Lake Rancheria
On June 26, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal from the Judgment in favor
of BLR. Briefing has not yet commenced on Defendants’ appeal.
9
5.
For purposes of this action only, the parties stipulate that BLREDC and MBS are
10
arms of the BLR tribe within the meaning of federal tribal sovereign immunity doctrine; and for
11
purposes of this action only, BLREDC and MBS were entitled to sovereign immunity to the same
12
extent as BLR is determined to be entitled to sovereign immunity.
13
6.
The parties agree that trial of BLREDC’s and MBS’s claims against EDD should
14
be postponed until after Defendants’ appeal from the judgment for BLR is resolved, because the
15
issues at trial will be substantially similar to those on appeal.
16
7.
The parties agree that the deadline to file dispositive motions, and the dates for
17
final pretrial conference and trial should be vacated.
18
Scheduling Order (whether already past or not) should remain the same.
19
8.
All other dates and deadlines in the
The parties agree that they should file a joint status report within fourteen (14) days
20
of the Court of Appeal’s issuing its mandate in the current appeal, in which the parties will
21
propose dates for the deadline to file dispositive motions and for final pretrial conference and trial.
22
9.
Discovery should not be re-opened except upon mutual agreement of the parties.
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING AMENDED STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
ORDER PENDING APPEAL
737514.1
1
IT IS SO AGREED.
2
3
Dated: October 15, 2015
BOUTIN JONES INC.
4
By:
5
6
7
Dated: October 15, 2015
/s/ Michael E. Chase
Michael E. Chase
Attorneys for plaintiffs
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
8
By:
9
10
11
Dated: October 15, 2015
/s/ Jill Bowers
Jill Bowers
Attorneys for defendants
CAROLINE D. CIRALOLO
Acting Assistant Attorney General
12
By:
13
14
/s/ W. Carl Hankla
W. Carl Hankla
Attorneys for intervenor
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING AMENDED STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
ORDER PENDING APPEAL
737514.1
1
ORDER
2
3
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby
ORDERS that:
4
1. The following dates and deadlines, as set forth in the January 5, 2015 Amended Status
5
(Pretrial Scheduling) Order (“Scheduling Order”), are vacated:
6
the trial date of May 23, 2016;
7
the pretrial conference date of April 1, 2016, and;
8
the January 13, 2016 deadline to file dispositive motions.
9
2. All other dates and deadlines provided in the Scheduling Order (whether already past
10
or not) shall remain the same.
11
3. The parties shall file a joint status report within fourteen (14) days of the Court of
12
Appeal’s issuing its mandate in the defendants’ appeal of this Court’s Judgment in
13
favor of Blue Lake Rancheria. In their joint status report, the parties shall propose
14
dates for the deadline to file dispositive motions and for final pretrial conference and
15
trial.
16
4. Discovery shall not be re-opened except upon mutual agreement of the parties
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: 10/15/2015
/s/ John A. Mendez_____________
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING AMENDED STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
ORDER PENDING APPEAL
737514.1
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?