United States of America v. 1.41 Acres of Land et al

Filing 129

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND STIPULATION REQUESTING SHORTENED TIME FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE re 128 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 126 MOTION for a Finding That the Conveyance of a Street Use and Parkin g Easement is the Reasonably Necessary Substitute Facility to shorten time filed by United States of America, 127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 113 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by United States of America, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 128 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 126 MOTION for a Finding That the Conveyance of a Street Use and Parking Easement is the Reasonably Necessary Substitute Facility to shorten time< /i>, 127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 113 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment , 126 MOTION for a Finding That the Conveyance of a Street Use and Parking Easement is the Reasonably Necessary Substitute Facility . Responses due by 9/21/2015. Replies due by 9/25/2015. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/11/15. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
1.41 ACRES OF LAND, et al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 14-01781 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
STIPULATION REQUESTING
SHORTENED TIME FOR
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

The United States seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order on

17

its motion for summary judgment regarding just compensation in light of the fact that United

18

States has proffered a street-use easement and a parking easement to the State of California. The

19

United States also argues that the Court’s order was based on an error of law. The parties have

20

stipulated to an abbreviated briefing and hearing schedule for the proposed motion for

21

reconsideration. Both requests are hereby GRANTED. Defendants’ opposition is due on

22

SEPTEMBER 21, and the reply of the United States, if necessary is due on SEPTEMBER 25. The

23

motion shall be heard on SEPTEMBER 30, in conjunction with the pre-trial conference already

24

scheduled for that date.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: September 11, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE