Walker River Paiute Tribe et al v. United States Departmet of Housing and Urban Development et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 26 Unopposed Motion. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/29/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Wes Williams Jr.
Law Offices of Wes Williams Jr.
A Professional Corporation
3119 Lake Pasture Rd.
P.O. Box 100
Schurz, Nevada 89427
Telephone [phone]
Nevada State Bar # 6864
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Walker River Paiute Tribe

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE, a
federally recognized Indian tribe,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
HOUSING AND URBAN
)
DEVELOPMENT (“HUD”); SHAWN
)
DONOVAN, Secretary of HUD;
)
DEBORAH A. HERNANDEZ, General
)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of )
Public and Indian Housing,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

23
24

WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE OVERLENGTH REPLY AND
OPPOSITION
AND ORDER THEREON

MO

Plaintiff WALKER RIVER PAIUTE TRIBE (hereinafter “WRPT” or “Plaintiff”),

21
22

Case No: 3:08-CV-00627

through its undersigned counsel, hereby requests that this court enter its order granting the
WRPT the right to file a reply and opposition that exceeds the applicable 20 pages or 30 pages
limit.

The scheduling order requires the WRPT to file by February 27, 2012 a Reply to

defendant’s opposition to the WRPT’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Opposition to

25

defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (filed as one document). This one filing will

26

be equivalent to two separate documents, thereby warranting exceeding the applicable 20 pages

27

or 30 pages limit. Accordingly this court should grant the WRPT’s unopposed motion for leave

28

to file an overlength reply and opposition.

1
2
3
4

ARGUMENT
On February 8, 2012, this court entered a scheduling order that requires the WRPT to file
a reply and opposition by February 27, 2012. Doc. 25. The order also requires the WRPT to file
the reply and opposition as one document. Normally a reply in support of a motion for summary

5

judgment and an opposition to a cross motion for summary judgment are filed as two separate

6

documents. Local Rule 7-4 limits such replies to 20 pages, and such responses to 30 pages.

7

However many of the WRPT’s argument overlap, but the total number of pages should be less

8

than 50 pages, but will likely be more than 30 pages. Given that filing the reply and opposition

9

as one document will shorten the number of pages needed to fully brief the issues, exceeding the

10
11
12
13
14
15

20 page limit for replies and the 30 page limit for responses is warranted.
The WRPT’s counsel contacted the Defendants’ counsel regarding this motion and
Defendants’ counsel advised that she does not object to the request.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the WRPT requests that the court enter its order granting the
WRPT the right to file an overlength brief that shall not exceed 50 pages.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on February 24, 2012.

16

Law Offices of Wes Williams Jr.

17

By: /s/ Wes Williams Jr.
Wes Williams Jr.
3119 Lake Pasture Rd.
P.O. Box 100
Schurz, Nevada 89427
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff Walker River Paiute Tribe

18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER

24

IT IS SO ORDERED., nunc pro tunc.

25

29th day of February, 2012.
DATED this ___ day of February, 2012.

26
27
28

_____________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2