Filed: Sep. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2017
Summary: PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS, AND CONTINUING PLEADINGS DEADLINE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiffs Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, et al. ("Plaintiffs"), Defendants Jeanne M. Higgins, 1 Stanislaus National Forest and the United States Forest Service, et al. ("Defendants") and Defendant-Intervenors California Farm Bureau, et al. ("Defendant-Intervenors") have conferred, and hereby stipulate
Summary: PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS, AND CONTINUING PLEADINGS DEADLINE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiffs Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, et al. ("Plaintiffs"), Defendants Jeanne M. Higgins, 1 Stanislaus National Forest and the United States Forest Service, et al. ("Defendants") and Defendant-Intervenors California Farm Bureau, et al. ("Defendant-Intervenors") have conferred, and hereby stipulate t..
More
PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, MODIFYING PAGE LIMITS, AND CONTINUING PLEADINGS DEADLINE
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiffs Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, et al. ("Plaintiffs"), Defendants Jeanne M. Higgins,1 Stanislaus National Forest and the United States Forest Service, et al. ("Defendants") and Defendant-Intervenors California Farm Bureau, et al. ("Defendant-Intervenors") have conferred, and hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court enter an order establishing the following terms for management of this case:
On September 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 33. The parties disagree about the timeliness of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants consented to the filing in a May 31, 2017 Stipulation ("May 31 Stipulation"). See ECF Nos. 18-19. Meanwhile Defendants contend that under the May 31 Stipulation, Defendants only consented to an amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B)2 (see May 31 Stip., ¶10), meaning that Plaintiffs could amend as a matter of course within 21 days of the filing of the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Because Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 30, 2017 (ECF No. 27), Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' 21-day period to amend their First Amended Complaint expired on August 21, 2017, whereas Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on September 5, 2017, which under the local rules was the deadline for their response to the motion to dismiss.
To avoid a protracted procedural argument and to promote judicial economy, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors consent under Rule 15(a)(2) to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint.
The parties agree as follows:
1. That the motion hearing set for September 19, 2017, should be taken off calendar.
2. On or before September 29, 2017, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors will file motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, not to exceed 40 pages.
3. On or before October 13, 2017, Plaintiffs will file their responses to the motions to dismiss, not to exceed 40 pages each.
4. On or before October 27, 2017, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors will file their replies, not to exceed 20 pages each.
5. The motions to dismiss shall be set for hearing on November 8, 2017, at 10 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
6. Any further amendments to the pleadings shall be made pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). Respectfully submitted,
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate administratively the pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 31 and 27).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
