Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar et al

Filing 40

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 01/22/13. Case number 2:13-cv-0064 JAM AC is consolidated under case case number 2:12-cv-3021 JAM AC and is administratively CLOSED. Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration is D ENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Page Limitations is DENIED. Defendants may file a consolidated opposition to the Motion for TRO no later than 1/25/13 to both UAIC's TRO and the TRO filed by the other group of plaintiffs. The court will consider the pending TRO motions first and order a hearing only if deemed necessary. The remaining motions will be heard on 3/20/13. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN
INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN
COMMUNITY, a federally
recognized Indian Tribe,

16

2:12-CV-3021-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.
KENNETH SALAZAR, Secretary of
the Interior, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18

20

UNITED AUBURN INDIAN
COMMUNITY OF THE AUBURN
RANCHERIA

21

No. 2:13-CV-64-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,

19

22

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES

v.

23

KENNETH SALAZAR, et al.,

24

Defendants.

25

CITIZENS FOR A BETTER WAY, et
al.,

26
27

Plaintiffs,
v.

28
1

1
2

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendants.

3
4
5

Currently pending before the Court are numerous motions and

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

filings by all parties in these related cases, Nos. 12-CV-3012JAM-AC and 13-CV-64-JAM-AC.

cases should be consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)
because both cases concern Defendants’ decision to accept the
same land into trust.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte orders

these cases consolidated.

In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d

1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987); see also In re Apple & AT & TM
Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-05152 JW, 2008 WL 1766761, 1, Slip
Copy (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2008).

The Clerk is ordered to

consolidate these cases under case number 2:12-CV-3021-JAM-AC and
to administratively close case number 2:13-CV-64-JAM-AC.
Plaintiffs United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn

18
19

The Court is convinced that these

Rancheria (“UAIC”) filed an Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. # 48) of the Court’s January 17, 2013 minute order (Doc. #
39).

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED because the Court

has broad discretion to manage its docket and scheduling
procedures.

UAIC also moves the Court for relief from its page

limitations (Doc. # 50), and that motion is also DENIED.
Also pending before the Court is UAIC’s Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 49).

Defendants may file a

consolidated opposition not to exceed 25 pages no later than
12:00 PM on Friday, January 25, 2013 to both UAIC’s TRO and the
2

1

TRO filed by the other group of Plaintiffs on January 15, 2013

2

(Doc. # 24).

3

reply, neither to exceed 10 pages, no later than Tuesday January

4

29, 2013.

5

(Doc. # 40) is accordingly vacated.

6

Plaintiffs may each file one reply or one joint

The previous briefing schedule set by minute order

Finally, the Court notes that the parties have filed a large

7

number of sometimes repetitive items in these cases.

The Court

8

recognizes that the parties are proceeding with a sense of

9

urgency, but the reality of the Court’s docket and trial schedule

10

requires a logical and orderly resolution of the complicated

11

issues raised in this litigation.

12

trial and has two additional trials set for January 28, 2013 and

13

February 11, 2013.

14

District of California is the most impacted court in the country

15

and that its judges currently carry the highest weighted case

16

load in the country.

17

The Court is currently in

The parties should be aware that the Eastern

The Court will therefore consider the pending TRO motions

18

first and order a hearing on those motions only if it is deemed

19

necessary.

20

2013, including Proposed Intervenor Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of

21

the Enterprise Rancheria, California’s Motion to Intervene (Doc.

22

# 13).

23

expedited basis, they can do so through agreement and

24

stipulation.

25

heavy case load and trial schedule allow.

The remaining motions will be heard on March 20,

If the parties want to resolve their disputes on an

Otherwise, the Court will proceed as quickly as its
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: January 22, 2013

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
3