Upper South East Communities Coalition v. US Army Corps of Engineers et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 5/22/2015 GRANTING 43 Ex Parte Application to file Combined Reply Brief. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 UPPER SOUTH EAST COMMUNITIES
COALITION,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
15 LT. GEN. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, in his
official capacity, Chief of Engineers and
16 Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; COL. MICHAEL J. FARRELL,
17 in his official capacity, District
Commander, Sacramento District, U.S.
18 Army Corps of Engineers; and MICHAEL
S. JEWELL Chief, Regulatory Division,
19 Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
20
Defendants.
21
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
22 COMMISSION OF WASHOE COUNTY,
23

Case No. 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-DAD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE
COMBINED REPLY BRIEF

Intervenor Defendant.

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE COMBINED REPLY BRIEF
CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-DAD

1

TO ALL PARTIES:

2

1.

On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff Upper Southeast Communities Coalition (“Plaintiff”)

3 filed the instant action, challenging the actions of Defendants U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et
4 al. (“Defendants”) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the
5 Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act, 42
6 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (“NEPA”); the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
7 (“APA”); and the CWA and NEPA implementing regulations;
8

2.

On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction;

9

3.

On May 20, 2015, Defendant and Defendant Intervenor each filed a separate, 25-

10 page brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction;
11

4.

On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Ex Parte Application to File

12 Combined Reply Brief, in which Plaintiff requested permission to file a single, combined reply
13 brief of up to 20 pages. Defendants and Defendant Intervenor do not oppose Plaintiff’s
14 application;
15

5.

The Court finding good cause, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Ex Parte Application to File

16 Combined Reply Brief is GRANTED.
17

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: Plaintiff may file a single,

18 combined reply brief of up to 20 pages, exclusive of exhibits, attachments, declarations and
19 tables, in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This Order does not alter the
20 deadlines or hearing date set forth in the Court’s May 15, 2015 Order Shortening Time for
21 Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 DATED: May 22, 2015
26

/s/ John A. Mendez_______

27

HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ

28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE COMBINED REPLY BRIEF
CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-DAD