San Francisco Herring Association v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 90

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 82 MOTION to Shorten Time Concerning Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by San Francisco Herring Association, ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 75 MOTION for Prel iminary Injunction , Set/Reset Deadlines as to 75 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Motion Hearing set for 1/13/2014 02:30 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 1/3/2014. Replies due by 1/8/2014.Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 20, 2013. (jstlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 13-cv-01750-JST
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

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

Re: ECF No. 82

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff has moved, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, to shorten the time to hear and brief

14

its motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 82. The Court has reviewed the motion,

15

Defendants’ response thereto, and Plaintiff’s reply.

16

The Court hereby SETS Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 75, for

17

hearing on January 13, 2014, at 2:30 P.M. Defendants shall file any opposition brief before 5:00

18

P.M. on January 3, 2014. Plaintiff may file any reply brief not later than January 8. The Court

19

expects to enter an order on the preliminary injunction motion by January 14.

20

The Court had previously ordered the California Attorney General’s Office to file any brief

21

in this case not later than January 10, 2014. ECF No. 65. On behalf of the California State Lands

22

Commission (“CSLC”), the Attorney General requested until February 10 to file such a brief.

23

ECF Nos. 70, 73 & 74. Plaintiff and Defendants did not oppose the request, and so the Court

24

granted it. ECF No. 85. However, it now appears that the Court may, in determining whether

25

Plaintiff has satisfied the “probability of success” / “serious questions” prong of the preliminary

26

injunction inquiry, need to address some or all of the questions presented in the Court’s

27

December 5 notice to the Attorney General. ECF No. 64. If, before the Court does so, the CSLC

28

would like to make any portion of its views known to the Court (even if it only consists of a short

1

statement of the positions CLSC expects to take on these questions), CSLC may file such a

2

submission before 5:00 P.M. on January 2.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2