Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Longie et al

Filing 105

ORDER Extending Time to Respond to 73 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Summary Judgment Regarding Discrimination, Equal Protection, § 1981, § 1983 and Fraud Claims filed by Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc. Response due by 1/10/2013. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (KT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
David Houle and Becky Houle, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
(CPEC),

CPEC vs.
Vernella Jeannotte, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Howard Longie, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Pete Barnett, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Kimberly Blackwell, et. al.,

Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND

Case No. 4:09-cv-021

Case No. 4:11-cv-073
Case No. 4:11-cv-076
Case No. 4:11-cv-084
Case No. 4:11-cv-101

Before the court is a “Motion to Seek Additional Time to Respond to Motion for
Summary Judgment Regarding Discrimination, Equal Protection, § 1981, § 1983, and Fraud
Claims” filed by plaintiffs David and Becky Houle on December 21, 2012. (Docket No. 257).
The existing deadline was set by the court’s October 26, 2012 order adopting the parties’
stipulation to extend the response deadline to ten days after CPEC filed an amended complaint.
(Docket No. 230). CPEC filed an amended complaint on November 30, 2012. (Docket No.
238). In the motion for additional time, plaintiffs assert they mistakenly believed the response
was not due until ten days after all pleadings necessitated by the amended complaint were closed
and request that the court extend the deadline to ten days after the close of pleadings addressing
CPEC’s amended complaint and to no earlier than January 10, 2013, due to the holiday season.
On December 26, 2012, defendant CPEC filed a brief objecting to the motion for extension of
1

time. CPEC asserts that the stipulation clearly required plaintiffs to respond within ten days of
the filing of the amended complaint and requests that the court to dismiss with prejudice the
claims addressed in the summary judgment motion at issue.
This case is set to be resolved in two separate trials, a first on the issue of use and
necessity and a second on the remaining claims and the issue of damages. The most immediate
substantive concern of the court is the issue of use and necessity which is set for trial in February
2013. The subsequent trial in which the claims at issue here, as well as claims for just
compensation, will be addressed is not set to begin until June 2013. At this point in the
proceedings, there will be adequate time to address the motions regarding the subject claims if an
extension of time to respond is granted. Therefore, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for
additional time (Docket No. 257) and ORDERS plaintiffs’ deadline to file a response to
defendant CPEC’s “Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Discrimination, Equal Protection,
§ 1981, § 1983, and Fraud Claims” (Docket No. 206) be extended to January 10, 2013.
In addition, the court notes that counsel for the Houles is representing the individual
defendants in the four additional cases captioned above, that similar summary judgment motions
are pending in those cases, and that the individual defendants in those cases have not filed
responses to those motions. Although requests for extensions of time were not electronically
filed, the court assumes that the defendants in those cases intended to request additional time to
respond. For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS that for the individual defendants in
the additional cases, the deadline to file responses to the pending summary judgment motions
regarding the issues of discrimination, equal protection, § 1981, § 1983, and fraud claims be
extended to January 10, 2013.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 28th day of December, 2012.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

3