Filing 26

ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE- motions due by 1/22/2013 By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Docket no. 2:11-cv-00439-GZS ) CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ) AT 278 ELM STREET, BREWER, ) PENOBSCOT COUNTY, MAINE, et al. ) ) Defendants-in-rem. ) ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE In accordance with the Court’s prior Order (ECF No. 23), the Court held a conference of counsel on January 16, 2012. Assistant United States Attorney Donald Clark appeared for Plaintiff. Attorneys Francis Dimento and George Dilworth appeared for various claimants. As indicated on the record at the conference, Attorney Sharon did not appear in light of a pending settlement of his client’s claims. Following the conference, the Court hereby ORDERS that the following procedure be followed in connection with the discussed motion practice: On or before January 22, 2013, Plaintiff shall file a partial dispositive motion, which shall not exceed twenty (20) pages. See Local Rule 7(e). At the conference, Attorney Clark indicated that Plaintiff will likely seek a judgment on the pleadings rather than summary judgment. Plaintiff is free to utilize Federal Rule 12(c) in the absence of any need to supplement that factual record in support of the requested partial judgment. If Plaintiff alternatively chooses to proceed with a motion for summary judgment, the Court expects the filing will comply with all the Local Rules of the District Maine, including all aspects of Local Rule 56. While it is not clear that any appearing party will oppose Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court expects that any objection will be filed within the deadlines and page limits set in the Local Rules. See D. Me. L. R. 7. The Court hereby lifts the stay of all prior scheduling order deadlines. In light of the stay that has been in place since December 10, 2012, the Court hereby extends all of the remaining scheduling order deadlines by thirty days. (See July 31, 2012 Order Amending Scheduling Order (ECF No. 21) & Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 20).) If any party believes the remaining scheduling order deadlines should remain stayed until there is a final decision on the partial motion for judgment that Plaintiff intends to file, they are free to seek such a stay upon a showing of good cause. SO ORDERED. /s/ George Z. Singal United States District Judge Dated this 16th day of January, 2013. 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?