High Sierra Hikers Association v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 137

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/4/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 MELINDA L. HAAG (CSBN 132612) United States Attorney ALEX TSE (CSBN 152348) Acting Chief, Civil Division MICHAEL T. PYLE (CSBN 172954) Assistant U.S. Attorney Northern District of California 150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 535-5087 Facsimile: (408) 535-5081 Email: michael.t.pyle@usdoj.gov 7 13 IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division CHARLES R. SHOCKEY (D.C. Bar No. 914879) Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section 501 “I” Street, Suite 9-700 Sacramento, CA 95814-2322 Telephone: 916-930-2203 Facsimile: 916-930-2210 Email: charles.shockey@usdoj.gov 14 Attorneys for Defendants 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 HIGH SIERRA HIKERS ASSOCIATION, 20 21 22 Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Case No. CV-09-4621-RS J OINT STIPULATION TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND PROPOSED ORDER J UDGE: HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION -- Case No.CV-09-4621-RS Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor 1 2 3 WHEREAS, on October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff High Sierra Hikers Association filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Other Expenses Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 4 WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants United States of the Interior, et al., have been 5 engaged in settlement discussions with respect to the Plaintiff’s motion and are interested in 6 continuing settlement discussions that, if successful, would avoid the need for a hearing; 7 8 WHEREAS, at Defendants’ request, the Court previously continued the date for the Defendants to file their opposition to the fee motion until December 11, 2012; 9 WHEREAS, the parties now have reached an agreement-in-principle regarding a possible 10 settlement of the Plaintiff’s motion, but require additional time to reach agreement on the specific 11 terms and conditions of the proposed settlement, as well as time for formal approval by officials 12 in the Department of the Interior and Department of Justice, 13 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed between the Parties that: 14 1. The date for the Defendants’ to file their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion shall be 15 continued by an additional 30 days, until January 10, 2013, to allow time for further settlement 16 discussions and review of any settlement agreement by both parties. 17 18 19 2. The parties shall advise the Court of the status their settlement discussions in a joint status report to be filed on or before January 4, 2013. 3. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion is continued until a date to be set following the joint 20 status report on January 4, 2013. If settlement does not appear imminent at that time, the parties 21 will agree on a date for the Plaintiff’s Reply and request a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion at the 22 next available date on the Court’s calendar. 23 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION -- Case No. CV-09-4621-RS 1 1 2 3 In addition to stipulating to the above, I, Charles R. Shockey, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation has been obtained from Barbara N. Barath, Attorney for Plaintiff. 4 5 Dated: December 4, 2012 BARBARA N. BARATH MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 6 By: /s/ Barbara Barath [as authorized] Barbara Barath, Attorney for Plaintiff 7 8 Dated: December 4, 2012 CHARLES R. SHOCKEY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 9 By: /s/ Charles R. Shockey Charles R. Shockey, Attorney for Defendants 10 [PROPOSED] ORDER 11 12 13 14 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. BY: 12/4/12 Dated: ______________________ HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION -- Case No. CV-09-4621-RS 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?