Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria v. United States Department of the Interior, 16-cv-7189-LB. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170208b22 Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER LAUREL BEELER , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, the parties, Plaintiff, Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria, and Defendants, United States Department of the Interior, Sarah Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and Lawrence S. Roberts, in his official capacity as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affai
More

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, the parties, Plaintiff, Tsi Akim Maidu of Taylorsville Rancheria, and Defendants, United States Department of the Interior, Sarah Jewell, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, and Lawrence S. Roberts, in his official capacity as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs of the United States Department of the Interior, (collectively, "Federal Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to extend the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's complaint and to continue the initial case management conference scheduled for March 16, 2017. The parties state as follows:

1. On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action challenging Defendants' determination that as a matter of law Plaintiff lost status as a federally recognized Indian tribe when the United States sold the Taylorsville Rancheria in 1966 pursuant to Congressional mandate. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief to compel Defendants to find that Plaintiff never lost its status as a federally recognized Indian tribe;

2. On December 21, 2016, the U.S. Attorney's Office received by certified mail a copy of the summons and the complaint, making February 21, 2017, the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint;

3. Defendants have been evaluating the claims raised in the complaint, but require additional time for their review;

4. The parties have conferred and agree to extend the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint by approximately 60 days, from the current deadline of February 21, 2017, to April 20, 2017;

5. By Order dated December 19, 2016, the Court set an initial case management conference at 11:00 a.m. on March 16, 2017. ECF No. 5. The parties further stipulate to continue the initial case management conference from March 16, 2017 to May 25, 2017;

6. No prior extensions of time have been requested or granted;

7. This change will not alter the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by Court order, other than the date of the initial case management conference.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendants that Defendants will have until April 20, 2017 to respond to Plaintiff's complaint. The parties further respectfully request that the initial case management conference be continued to May 25, 2017.

SO STIPULATED.

ECF ATTESTATION

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5(i)(3), I, Michelle Lo, attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatory listed here.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendants are to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint by April 20, 2017. The initial case management conference will be held on May 25, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall file a joint case management conference statement seven days prior to the conference.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer