Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hoopa Valley Tribe v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 3:16-cv-04294-WHO. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161018a65 Visitors: 22
Filed: Oct. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS (DN 33) WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Hoopa Valley Tribe, Defendants U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service ("Federal Defendants"), and Defendant-Intervenors Klamath Water Users Association, Sunnyside Irrigation District, and Ben DuVal hereby agree and stipulate to Federal Defendants' request to enlarge the time for Federal De
More

STIPULATION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS (DN 33)

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Hoopa Valley Tribe, Defendants U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service ("Federal Defendants"), and Defendant-Intervenors Klamath Water Users Association, Sunnyside Irrigation District, and Ben DuVal hereby agree and stipulate to Federal Defendants' request to enlarge the time for Federal Defendants to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay (DN 33). Currently, Plaintiff's Opposition to Federal Defendants' motion is due by October 19, 2016, which would make Federal Defendants' reply brief due within seven days thereof (i.e., by October 26, 2016) under Local Rule 7-3(c).

Good cause exists for enlarging the time for Federal Defendants' reply because undersigned counsel for Federal Defendants will be on work-related travel on other matters October 25-26, which would leave an insufficient amount of time in which to prepare Federal Defendants' brief by October 26 given the complexity of the issues involved and the time required for internal review of the brief, both within the Defendant agencies as well as the Department of Justice. An extension of one week (i.e., to November 2, 2016) is the minimum amount of time necessary to adequately prepare Federal Defendants' reply brief. Federal Defendants have not previously sought an extension of this deadline. The requested extension is consistent with Local Rule 7-2 and should not affect the hearing date on Federal Defendants' motion, as the new deadline for their reply brief would be 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing date of November 16, 2016.

WHEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate to enlarge the time for Federal Defendants to file their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss up to, and including, November 2, 2016.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

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