Murphy v. United States Forest Service, 13-cv-02315-TLN-AC. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160208589
Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The parties have identified a new and substantial possibility for resolution. However, they cannot dedicate time to both exploring this new resolution and to the current summary judgment briefing schedule. Therefore, the parties hereby stipulate to, and seek an order from this Court, continuing the briefing schedule on the pending motions for summary judgment as set forth below. Event
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The parties have identified a new and substantial possibility for resolution. However, they cannot dedicate time to both exploring this new resolution and to the current summary judgment briefing schedule. Therefore, the parties hereby stipulate to, and seek an order from this Court, continuing the briefing schedule on the pending motions for summary judgment as set forth below. Event ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The parties have identified a new and substantial possibility for resolution. However, they cannot dedicate time to both exploring this new resolution and to the current summary judgment briefing schedule. Therefore, the parties hereby stipulate to, and seek an order from this Court, continuing the briefing schedule on the pending motions for summary judgment as set forth below.
Event Current Date Proposed Date
Defendants' Opposition and February 8, 2016 February 22, 2016
Cross-Motion
Plaintiff's Reply and Opposition March 7, 2016 March 21, 2016
Defendants' Reply March 17, 2016 April 1, 2016
The parties also stipulate to, and propose continuing the current hearing date of March 24, 2016, at 2 p.m. to April 7, 2016, at 2 p.m.
The parties further note that the Forest Service halted the Project some time ago (though there is a dispute regarding the ongoing environmental impacts of previously implemented Project actions) and authorization for the challenged Project has been withdrawn. There is thus good cause for the continuance, and the Court should grant it.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
