Filed: Jul. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAYING BRIEFING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL IN RELATED CASE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among the parties and subject to Court approval, that: (1) Briefing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, as set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order (ECF No. 17), shall be stayed pending a decision on the appeal to be filed in the related case Earth Islan
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAYING BRIEFING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL IN RELATED CASE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among the parties and subject to Court approval, that: (1) Briefing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, as set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order (ECF No. 17), shall be stayed pending a decision on the appeal to be filed in the related case Earth Island..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR STAYING BRIEFING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL IN RELATED CASE
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among the parties and subject to Court approval, that:
(1) Briefing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, as set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order (ECF No. 17), shall be stayed pending a decision on the appeal to be filed in the related case Earth Island Institute, et al. v. Kevin Elliott, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:17-cv-01320-LJO-SAB ("the Bull Run case" or "Bull Run").
(2) The parties shall file a Joint Status Report within 60 days of the Ninth Circuit's issuance of the mandate in the Bull Run case regarding how the instant action should proceed.
The reasons for this Stipulation and Proposed Order are as follows:
In this action, Plaintiffs Sequoia ForestKeeper and Earth Island Institute allege that the United States Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4332, by authorizing the Spear Creek Hazard Tree Mitigation Project in the Sequoia National Forest. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the Forest Service violated NEPA by approving the project pursuant to Categorical Exclusions rather than preparing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. Plaintiffs further allege that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to explain why the project's potentially adverse effects on Pacific fishers and California spotted owls are not significant.
Plaintiffs alleged identical NEPA claims in the Bull Run case, in which this Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service and Sierra Forest Products on July 9, 2018. Plaintiffs will file a Notice of Appeal in the Bull Run case on or before July 31, 2018. The parties anticipate that the outcome of the appeal in the Bull Run case may affect the outcome of the instant action challenging the Spear Creek project.
Accordingly, the parties believe that staying briefing in this case pending resolution of the Bull Run appeal will conserve judicial resources and secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) ("[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.").
IT IS SO ORDERED.
