UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 278 ELM STREET, BREWER

Filing 26

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

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