County of Amador v. The United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 62

AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/23/14: Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Summary Judgment no later than May 1, 2014. Federal and Intervenor Defendants shall file their combined Opposition and Cro ss-Motion for Summary Judgment no later than June 26, 2014. Plaintiffs shall file their combined Opposition and Reply no later than August 21, 2014. Federal and Intervenor Defendants shall file their Reply no later than October 2, 2014. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

COUNTY OF AMADOR, CALIFORNIA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No.

v.

2:12-cv-01710-TLN-CKD

AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
ORDER

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR; S.M.R. JEWELL,
Secretary of the United States
Department of the Interior;
KEVIN WASHBURN, Assistant
Secretary of Indian Affairs,
United States Department of
Interior,
Defendants.

18
19

THE IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS,

20

Intervenor Defendant.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

After reviewing the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on
January 13, 2014, the Court makes the following Pretrial
Scheduling Order.
I.

SERVICE OF PROCESS

All named Defendants have been served and no further service
is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been
shown.

28
1

1

II.

2

No joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is

3

ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS

permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown.

4

III.

5

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

6

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction and venue are not contested.

7

IV.

8

In agreeing that no need for additional discovery is

9

DISCOVERY

indicated at this time, the parties appear to concede that

10

judicial review of agency decisions is limited to the

11

administrative record, unless a need to expand that record is

12

demonstrated by the parties.

13

Diversity v. U.S., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996); see also

14

5 U.S.C. § 706.

15

to the administrative record unless good cause is found for

16

augmentation of that record.

17

objecting to the adequacy of the Administrative Record by

18

February 15, 2014.

See Southwest Center for Biological

Consequently, the Court’s review will be limited

Plaintiffs shall file any motions

19

V.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

20

The parties have agreed that cross-motions for summary

21

judgment are appropriate for purposes of resolving this

22

litigation.

23

parameters:

24
25
26

1.

These motions will be governed by the following

Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Summary

Judgment no later than May 1, 2014.
2.

Federal and Intervenor Defendants shall file their

27

combined Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment no

28

later than June 26, 2014.
2

1
2

3.

Reply no later than August 21, 2014.

3
4

4.

Federal and Intervenor Defendants shall file their

Reply no later than October 2, 2014.

5
6

Plaintiffs shall file their combined Opposition and

5.

A brief statement of facts will be included in the

parties' briefs.

7

6.

8

of 70 pages.

9

7.

No separate statement of facts is required.

10

Each party’s combined briefs shall not exceed a total

The moving party shall notice the motion and set a

hearing date pursuant to Local Rule 230(b).

11

All purely legal issues are to be resolved by timely

12

pretrial motions.

Failure to comply with Local Rules 230 and

13

260, as modified by this Order, may be deemed consent to the

14

motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.

15

Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion1 may

16

result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the

17

burden to the nonmovant to demonstrate that a genuine issue of

18

material fact remains for trial.

19

For the Court’s convenience, citations to Supreme Court

20

cases should include parallel citations to the Supreme Court

21

Reporter.

22

VI.

TRIAL

23

Since the parties have informed the Court that they intend

24

to adjudicate this matter by way of dispositive motions,

25

therefore, no trial date has been scheduled.

26
27
28

1

The Court urges any party that contemplates bringing a motion for summary
judgment or who must oppose a motion for summary judgment to review Local Rule
260.

3

1

VII.

2

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the

MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

3

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Pretrial Scheduling Order

4

shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of

5

good cause.

6

alone to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order does not constitute

7

good cause.

8

unavailability of witnesses or counsel will not constitute good

9

cause.

Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation

Except in extraordinary circumstances,

10

VIII. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

11

This Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without

12

further order of the Court unless objections are filed within

13

fourteen (14) days of service of this Order.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2014

16
17
18
19
20

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4