Global Comminity Monitor, et al v. Mammoth Pacific, LP et al

Filing 63

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 06/17/16 ORDERING that Court SETS the following briefing schedule for 59 plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Their Complaint: filed: 06/14/16; opposition: 06/28/16; reply: 07/07/16; hearing: 07/14/16 at 2:00 p.m.; the Dispositive motion cutoff is EXTENDED to 10/06/16 and SETS the briefing schedule for dispositive motions as follows: motions filed: 08/11/16; oppositions and any cross motions: 09/01/16; reply a nd opposition to cross-motions: 09/15/16; reply on any cross-motions: 09/29/16; hearing: 10/06/16 at 2:00 p.m.; if no decision has been entered by 08/05/16 on plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, the dispositive dates shall be EXTENDED; all other deadlines established in the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order remain in effect. (A. Benson)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HOLLAND & HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101

11

MATTHEW B. HIPPLER (Cal. Bar No. 212036)
HOLLAND & HART LLP
5441 Kietzke Lane, Second Floor
Reno, NV 89511
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
STEVEN G. JONES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
EMILY C. SCHILLING (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
HOLLAND & HART LLP
222 So. Main Street, Suite 2200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18

GLOBAL COMMUNITY MONITOR, a
California nonprofit corporation;
LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL
UNION NO. 783, an organized labor
union; RANDAL SIPES, JR., an
individual; RUSSEL COVINGTON, an
individual;

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN
STIPULATION AND ORDER
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR
COMPLAINT AND FOR
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr.

MAMMOTH PACIFIC, L.P., a California
Limited Partnership; ORMAT NEVADA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; ORMAT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES I-X, inclusive,
Defendants.

RECITALS

1
1.

2

On March 22, 2016, Plaintiffs transmitted a letter providing Notice of Intent to Sue Under

3

the Clean Air Act to Defendants Mammoth Pacific, L.P., Ormat Nevada, Inc. and Ormat

4

Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Ormat”). In their letter, Plaintiffs provided Ormat with notice of

5

their intent to amend their existing Complaint and outlined the bases under which Plaintiffs maintained

6

such an amendment would be appropriate.
2.

7

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiffs provided Ormat with a copy of their proposed First

8

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for review and requested that Ormat stipulate to Plaintiffs filing of the

9

FAC.

10

3.

On May 20, 2016, Ormat responded to both Plaintiffs’ March 22, 2016 Notice of Intent to

HOLLAND & HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101

11

Sue and Plaintiffs’ proposed FAC with a letter and other documents. In its letter, Ormat declined to

12

stipulate to Plaintiffs filing of their proposed FAC.

13

4.

The Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 31) provides that “[n]o joinder of parties

14

or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause being shown.” Dkt No.

15

31 at 1:24-25. Based on Ormat’s refusal to stipulate to Plaintiffs’ filing of the FAC, Plaintiffs have

16

elected to move the Court for leave to amend their complaint and to file the FAC.

17

5.

The Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order established September 15, 2016 as the last day to

18

hear dispositive motions. Dkt No. 31 at 4:2. In order to comply with the briefing deadlines set in the

19

Pretrial Scheduling Order, the parties agreed to file their initial dispositive motions on July 8, 2016.

20

6.

Local Rule 230(b) provides that civil motions are to be filed at least twenty-eight (28)

21

days prior to the date such motions are noted for hearing. The parties agree that having a decision on

22

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is necessary in order for them to determine the appropriate

23

scope of any dispositive motions.

24

7.

In order to allow sufficient time for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Leave to Amend

25

which complies with the scheduling requirements of Local Rule 230(b) and which also allows the

26

parties time to take account of the Court’s decision on that Motion, the parties have agreed to an

27

amendment of the case schedule as outlined below.
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 2

STIPULATION

1
1.

2
3

The parties stipulate to the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to

Amend Their Complaint:

4

June 14, 2016:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend filed;

5

June 28, 2016:

Ormat’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend due;

6

July 7, 2016:

Plaintiffs’ reply on their Motion for Leave to Amend due:

7

July 14, 2016:

Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

8

2.

9

In order to allow time for the Court to decide Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend and

provide the parties sufficient time to account for the Court’s decision in their dispositive motions, the

HOLLAND & HART LLP

parties stipulate to an extension of the dispositive motion cutoff and to a briefing schedule for

11
222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101

10

dispositive motions as follows:

12

August 11, 2016:

Initial dispositive motions filed;

13

September 1, 2016:

Opposition briefs and any cross-motions due;

14

September 15, 2016:

Reply briefs and opposition to cross-motions due;

15

September 29, 2016:

Reply briefs on cross-motions (if any) due;

16

October 6, 2016:

Hearing on dispositive motions and cross-motions (if any).

17

3.

The parties also stipulate that, in the event the Court has not issued a decision on

18

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend by August 5, 2016, the schedule for dispositive motions shall

19

be extended by the number of days between August 5, 2016, and the date of the Court’s decision on

20

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, with dispositive motions being noted for the next available

21

hearing date on the Court’s calendar eight (8) weeks following the date of the Court’s decision on

22

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

23

4.

The parties agree that the extension of the dispositive motion cutoff and any further

24

extension of the dispositive motion cutoff required by the timing of the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’

25

Motion for Leave to Amend will not result in a modification to any of the other deadlines established

26

in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order.

27
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 3

1

5.

If the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, the parties agree to allow

2

designated experts to submit addendums to their expert reports and rebuttals to those addendums and

3

to allow for further deposition testimony in relation to the new claims as may be necessary.

4
5

So Stipulated this 13th day of June, 2016:

6
7

HOLLAND & HART LLP

8

s/ Steven G. Jones
MATTHEW HIPPLER
STEVEN G. JONES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
EMILY C. SCHILLING (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

9
10

HOLLAND & HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101

11

Attorneys for Defendants

12
13

LOZEAU | DRURY

15

s/ Douglas Chermak
RICHARD DRURY
DOUGLAS CHERMAK

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

17
18
19

ORDER

20

Based on the parties’ Stipulation as outlined above, the Court enters the following Order:

21

1.

22

The Court sets the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to

Amend Their Complaint:

23

June 14, 2016:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend filed;

24

June 28, 2016:

Ormat’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend due;

25

July 7, 2016:

Plaintiffs’ reply on their Motion for Leave to Amend due:

26

July 14, 2016:

Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

27
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 4

1
2

2.

The Court extends the dispositive motion cutoff from September 15, 2016 to October 6,

2016, and establishes the briefing schedule for dispositive motions as follows:

3

August 11, 2016:

Initial dispositive motions filed;

4

September 1, 2016:

Opposition briefs and any cross-motions due;

5

September 15, 2016:

Reply briefs and opposition to cross-motions due;

6

September 29, 2016:

Reply briefs on cross-motions (if any) due;

7

October 6, 2016:

Hearing on dispositive motions and cross-motions (if any).

8

3.

9

In the event the Court has not issued a decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend

by August 5, 2016, the schedule for dispositive motions shall be extended by the number of days

HOLLAND & HART LLP

between August 5, 2016 and the date of the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to

11
222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101

10

Amend, with dispositive motions being noted for the next available hearing date on the Court’s

12

calendar eight (8) weeks following the date of the Court’s decision on the Motion for Leave to Amend.

13

4.

Apart from the schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend and the extension of

14

the dispositive motion cutoff outlined in this Order and any extension of the dispositive motion cutoff

15

required by the timing of the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, all other

16

deadlines established in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order remain in effect.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2016

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 5