JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James et al

Filing 209

ORDER granting 206 STIPULATION re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/05/2020. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

4

EDUARDO G. ROY (State Bar No. 146316)
PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
388 Market Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: [phone]
[e-mail]

5

Attorneys for Tribal Defendants

1
2
3

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JW GAMING DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

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

ANGELA JAMES; LEONA L. WILLIAMS;
MICHAEL R. CANALES; MELISSA M.
CANALES; JOHN TANG; PINOLEVILLE
POMO NATION, A FEDERALLYRECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE;
PINOLEVILLE GAMING AUTHORITY;
PINOLEVILLE GAMING COMMISSION;
PINOLEVILLE BUSINESS
BOARD;PINOLEVILLE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; LENORA
STEELE; KATHY STALLWORTH;
MICHELLE CAMPBELL; JULIAN J.
MALDONADO; DONALD WILLIAMS;
VERONICA TIMBERLAKE; CASSANDRA
STEELE; JASON EDWARD RUNNING
BEAR STEELE; ANDREW STEVENSON;
CANALES GROUP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; LORI J. CANALES; KELLY L.
CANALES; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20,

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-02669-WHO
STIPULATION TO PERMIT TRIBAL
DEFENDANTS TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITATION OF MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
Hon. William H. Orrick

Defendants.
///
///
///
///
0
STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LIMITATION RE OPPO. TO MSJ//3:18-cv-02669-WHO

1

STIPULATION

2
3
4

Plaintiff and Tribal Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and
agree as follows:

5
6

1. WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 191) (“MSJ”) with

7

a 24-page memorandum seeking a summary judgment of over 16 million dollars against 11

8

separate individuals and four separate entities (“Tribal Defendants”), which omits a statement

9

of issues and includes 17 single-spaced footnotes, 44 lines in length, 34 legal authorities, some

10

70 or more alleged material facts, and dozens of exhibits that are hundreds of pages in length;

11
12

2. WHERAS, Tribal Defendants will be filing an opposition memorandum responding to all of

13

the matters raised and omitted by Plaintiff in its MSJ, including extensive legal briefing and

14

opposing facts and evidence, and a motion to strike and evidentiary objections that must be

15

included in the opposition memorandum by Local Rule, as well as additional facts and law

16

concerning one or more affirmative defenses.

17
3. WHEREAS, counsel for the Tribal Defendants believe they cannot adequately and
18
meaningfully present all of this information in their anticipated memorandum in opposition to
19
the MSJ in under 35 pages.
20
21

4. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed that Tribal Defendants may file a

22

memorandum supporting their opposition to the MSJ which exceeds the 25-page limitation by

23

10 pages, totaling 35 pages. In stipulating to this request, Plaintiff does not concede or

24

otherwise take any position on any representations herein, including those representations in

25

paragraph 1 hereof; Plaintiff merely stipulates to Tribal Defendants’ request to exceed the 25-

26

page limitation by 10 pages.

27

///

28

Dated: May 1, 2020

Fredericks. Peebles & Patterson LLP

1
STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LIMITATION RE OPPO. TO MSJ//3:18-cv-02669-WHO

1
2

By: __/s/______Gregory M. Narvaez____

3

Gregory M. Narvaez

4

Attorneys for Plaintiff

5
6

Dated: May 1, 2020

Prometheus Partners L.L.P.

7
8

By: ___/s/

9

Eduardo G. Roy_______________

Eduardo G. Roy

10

Attorneys for Tribal Defendants

11
12
[PROPOSED] ORDER
13
14
Based on the foregoing stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tribal Defendants may file a memorandum in opposition to
16

Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 191) not to exceed 35 pages in length without

17
Court permission.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: May 5, 2020
20
__________________________________________
21
JUDGE OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LIMITATION RE OPPO. TO MSJ//3:18-cv-02669-WHO