Murphy v. United States Forest Service, et al.

Filing 21

STIPULATION and ORDER 20 for extension of time signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 2/25/2014. Defendants has up to and including 4/8/2014 to respond to plaintiff's 15 First Amended Complaint. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
Attorneys for Defendants
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

DENNIS D. MURPHY
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE;
TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as
Chief of the United States Forest Service;
and NANCY J. GIBSON, in her official
capacity as Forest Supervisor of the United
States Forest Service,
Defendants

CASE NO. 13-cv-02315-GEB-AC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

15
16

Plaintiff served its Complaint in this matter on November 13, 2013. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

17

Civil Procedure 4(i), Defendants’ responsive pleading was due on January 13, 2014. The parties

18

stipulated to an extension of 15 days, up to and including January 28, 2014, for Defendants to respond.

19

In submitting the Joint Status Report, Plaintiff indicated that he would amend their Complaint to add

20

claims, and filed a First Amended Complaint on February 6, 2014. (Dkt. No. 13) Defendants’ response

21

is presently due on or about February 20, 2014. The Court entered a Scheduling Order in this matter

22

requiring Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment on or before September 22, 2014, and

23

Defendants’ to file any cross-motion by October 20, 2014. (Dkt. No. 14).

24

Since the filing of the Joint Status Report, the parties have engaged in settlement talks and have

25

exchanged drafts of a written term sheet. Although there are still areas of disagreement, the parties have

26

advanced discussions considerably and anticipate that a resolution may be possible without further

27

litigation. Resolution without further use of the Court’s resources would appear to be good cause to

28

further extend the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

29
30

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

1

Wherefore, pursuant to Local Rule 144, the parties hereby stipulate, through undersigned counsel

2

of record, to an extension of approximately sixty (60) days for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s First

3

Amended Complaint up to and including April 8, 2014. This should permit the parties sufficient time to

4

either resolve the matter, or to determine that resolution is impractical and to move forward with

5

litigation. No other dates in the Scheduling Order need be extended or modified to accommodate this

6

extension.

7

Respectfully submitted,

8

DATED: February 19, 2014

9

By

10
11

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

12
13
14

/s/ Paul S. Weiland
Attorney for Plaintiff

By:

/s/ Gregory T. Broderick
GREGORY T. BRODERICK
Assistant United States Attorney

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: February 25, 2014

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3