Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, et al., v. Glaser et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/6/12 ORDERING the briefing schedule REVISED as follows: Federal Defendants' dispositive motion due by 3/16/2012; Defendant Authority's reply to plaintiff Opposition due by 3/23/12; Plaintiffs&# 039; opposition to Federal defendants' dispositive motion due by 3/30/12; Federal defendants' reply due by 4/13/2012; and 21 Motion to Dismiss Hearing set for 4/27/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF
FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, et al.,

11
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
DONALD R. GLASER, Regional Director of
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, and SAN
LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER
AUTHORITY

No. 2:11–cv–02980–KJM–CKD
ORDER SETTING REVISED BRIEFING
AND ARGUMENT SCHEDULE IN
CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS'
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
Current Argument Date: March 9, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 3
Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

17
Defendants.
18
___________________________________/
19
20

Defendant San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority ("Authority"), and Federal

21

Defendants Donald R. Glaser, Regional Director of United States Bureau of Reclamation ("USBR"),

22

and USBR, have jointly moved this Court to set a revised briefing and argument schedule in this

23

case. Plaintiff Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations have opposed the motion,

24

arguing that it would unfairly give the Authority additional time to file its reply. It also argues that

25

the USBR has waived its opportunity to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Federal

26

Rules of Civil Procedure by filing its answer on January 9, 2012.

27
28

As plaintiff argues, by filing its answer, USBR has waived its right to bring a motion raising
any of the defenses in Rule 12(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b); Beery v. Hitachi Home Electronics

1

(America), Inc., 157 F.R.D. 477, 479 (C.D. Cal. 1993). To the extent USBR will argue that this

2

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, however, such a motion may be raised at any time. FED. R.

3

CIV. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1075 n.3 (9th Cir. 1983). As a matter of

4

judicial economy, it is preferable that all such challenges be considered at the same time. USBR is

5

counseled, however, that to the extent it attempts to bring a Rule 12(b) motion, it may be subject to

6

sanctions.

7
8

Therefore upon consideration of the motion and opposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT the following schedule shall apply:

9

March 16, 2012

Federal Defendants' dispositive motion is due

10

March 23, 2012

Defendant Authority's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition (Dkt 24) is due

11

March 30, 2012

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Federal Defendants' dispositive motion is due

12

April 13, 2012

Federal Defendants' Reply is due

13

April 27, 2012

Hearing on the Defendants' two dispositive motions.

14
15

DATED: March 6, 2012

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-