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)

Download PDF
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?