IN EQUITY C-125-B: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION, ET AL.

Filing 1668

ORDER GRANTING 1666 Motion to Extend Time to File Response to WRID's 1663 Objections to Rulings of Magistrate Judge With Respect to Proposed Order Concerning Service Cut-Off Date . The US and the Tribe shall file any responses on or before 12/2/2011. (Responses due by 12/2/2011.) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 11/4/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5

Greg Addington, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Susan L. Schneider, Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Div.
999 – 18th Street, Suite 370
Denver, Colorado 80202
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for the United States of America

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE,
)
)
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
)
)
v.
)
WALKER RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRICT, )
)
a corporation, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

IN EQUITY NO. C-125
SUBFILE NO. C-125-B
3:73-cv-00127-ECR-LRL
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO WALKER RIVER
IRRIGATION DISTRICT’S
OBJECTIONS TO RULINGS OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WITH
RESPECT TO PROPOSED ORDER
CONCERNING SERVICE CUT-OFF
DATE
ORDER GRANTING

18
19

Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LR 6-1 and LR 6-2,

20

counsel for the United States of America (“United States”) and the Walker River Paiute Tribe

21

(“Tribe”) move the Court for an order extending the time for them to file their response to the

22

Walker River Irrigation District’s Objections to Rulings of Magistrate Judge With Respect to
23

Proposed Order Concerning Service Cut-Off Date (#1663) from on or before October 24 2011,
24
25
26
27

to on or before December 2, 2011.
In support of the Motion, counsel for the United States and the Tribe represent the
following:

1

1.

2

Pursuant to LR IB 3-1 and rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the current
deadline to file responses is October 24, 2011. The United States and the Tribe anticipate

3

filing a joint response, which effort requires coordination among them.

4

2.

At the request of the United States, the Tribe and Mineral County, the proposed Plaintiff-

5

Intervenor in subproceeding C-125-C (collectively the “Plaintiff Parties”), Magistrate

6
7

Judge Leavitt held a telephonic status conference on October 19, 2010, to address

8

pending service issues. (Order, C-125-B, # 1598; C-125-C, #512).

9

3.

10

Pursuant to the status conference and by Stipulation and Order dated December 9, 2010,
and December 15, 2010, respectively, the Court established a schedule for filing

11

proposed service cutoff and successor-in-interest orders in C-125-B and C-125-C, as well

12

as memoranda related to objections, if any, to the proposed orders. (C-125-B, #1616; C13

125-C, #518).

14
15

4.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, on November 30, 2010, the United States and the Tribe

16

filed a proposed Service Cut-Off Order in subproceeding C-125-B, and the Plaintiff

17

Parties filed joint proposed Successor-In-Interest Orders in subproceedings C-125-B and

18

C-125-C. (C-125-B, ## 1613, 1614; C-125-C, # 516).

19

5.

In late 2010 and early 2011, the Court extended the filing deadlines related to the

20

proposed orders three times, twice for the Primary Defendants and once for the Plaintiff
21

parties. (C-125-B, ## 1617, 1620, 1627; C-125-C, ## 519, 521, 528).

22
23

6.

After briefing was complete in early 2011, on August 24, 2011, Magistrate Judge Leavitt

24

issued identical Revised Proposed Orders Concerning Service Issues Pertaining to

25

Defendants Who Have Been Served in subproceedings C-125-B and C-125-C. (C-125-B,

26

# 1649; C-125-C, #540).

27

1

7.

2

On August 26, 2011, Magistrate Judge Leavitt issued an Amended Order Concerning
Service Issues Pertaining to Defendants Who Have Been Served in subproceeding C-125-

3

B. (C-125-B, # 1650).

4

8.

On September 6, 2011, Magistrate Judge Leavitt issued an identical Amended Order

5

Concerning Service Issues pertaining to Defendants Who Have Been Served in

6

subproceeding C-125-C. (C-125-C, # 542).

7
8

9.

9
10

The amended orders contained attachments not included in the Orders of August 24,
2011, but are otherwise identical.

10.

11

On September 12, 2011, WRID filed Objections to Rulings of Magistrate Judge With
Respect to Revised Proposed Orders and Amended Orders Concerning Service Issues

12

Pertaining to Defendants Who Have Been Served, challenging the Magistrate Judge’s
13

August 24, August 26, and September 6 Orders. (C-125-B, ## 1652, 1653; C-125-C, ##

14
15

543, 544. Circle Bar N Ranch, LLC, and Mica Farms, LLC joined in WRID’s objections.

16

(C-125-B # 1654; C-125-C, #545).

17

11.

18
19

On September 19, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Concerning Service CutOff Date. (C-125-B, # 1656).

12.

Because the Plaintiff Parties plan to submit a joint response to WRID’s objections

20

regarding successor-in-interest issues, and because the Attorneys for Mineral County
21
22

were about to commence a lengthy administrative hearing that is scheduled to run

23

through November 18, 2011, Plaintiff Parties sought and Defendants concurred in an

24

extension of time within which to file this response. The Court has granted an extension

25

of time within which the response to the successor-in-interest objections is to be filed

26

until December 2, 2011. (C-125-B, #1661; C-125-C, #549).

27

1

13.

2

On October 6, 2011, WRID filed Objections to Rulings of Magistrate Judge With
Respect to Proposed Order Concerning Service Cut-Off Date, challenging the Magistrate

3

Judge’s Order Concerning Service Cut-Off Date (C-125-B, ## 1663, 1664). Circle Bar N

4

Ranch, LLC, and Mica Farms, LLC joined in WRID’s objections. (C-125-B # 1665).
5
6

14.

To some extent, WRID’s objections regarding the Order Concerning Service Cut-Off

7

Date appear to address successor-in-interest issues as well. As a result, it is logical that

8

the response regarding the objections to both Orders addressed herein, be made on the

9

same timetable.

10

15.

11

Therefore, the United States and the Tribe request an extension until December 2, 2011,
in which to file a joint response to WRID’s objections to the Order Concerning Service

12

Cut-off Date.
13
14

16.

Counsel for the United States has contacted counsel for Primary Defendants concerning
this request for an extension and none of the Primary Defendants has objected to it.

15
16
17

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the United States and the Tribe

18

respectfully request that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion, and extend the time for them to

19

file any responses to on or before December 2, 2011.

20

Respectfully Submitted,
21
22

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
23
24
25
26
27

By:

/s/ Susan L. Schneider
Susan L. Schneider, Trial Attorney
Environment and Natural Resources Div.
999 – 18th Street, Suite 370
Denver, Colorado, 80202
Attorney for Untied States of America

Case 3:73-cv-00127-ECR -RAM Document 1666

Filed 10/14/11 Page 5 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE

By: Wes Williams Jr. (by SLS)
Wes Williams Jr.
Nevada Bar No. 06864
3119 Pasture Rd.
P.O. Box 100
Schurz, Nevada 89427
Attorney for Walker River Paiute Tribe

8
9
10

ORDER

11
12

November 4, 2011.
Dated: __________________________, 2011.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
14

_______________________________
United States District Judge

15
16

3:73-cv-127-ECR-RAM
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27