Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . Defendants hereby respectfully move for entry of an order setting a new schedule for further proceedings in this action. The undersigned has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, who do not oppose this request for a scheduling order. In support of this motion, Defendants state as follows. This action concerns public lands managed by Defendant, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), located with
Summary: DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER CAM FERENBACH , Magistrate Judge . Defendants hereby respectfully move for entry of an order setting a new schedule for further proceedings in this action. The undersigned has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, who do not oppose this request for a scheduling order. In support of this motion, Defendants state as follows. This action concerns public lands managed by Defendant, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), located withi..
More
DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A SCHEDULING ORDER
CAM FERENBACH, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants hereby respectfully move for entry of an order setting a new schedule for further proceedings in this action. The undersigned has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, who do not oppose this request for a scheduling order. In support of this motion, Defendants state as follows.
This action concerns public lands managed by Defendant, the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), located within the northern portion of the Las Vegas Valley — previously defined as the Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation Transfer Area ("CTA"). On August 12, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation jointly requesting that the stay of proceedings, then about to expire, be extended until September 9. Doc. No. 24. The stipulation noted passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 ("NDAA"), which, among other things, designated the vast majority of the lands in the CTA as part of a national monument and expressly terminated BLM's decision regarding the CTA. In addition, the stipulation indicated that BLM had advised Plaintiffs in writing that the NDAA negated the decision challenged in this case, rendering it no longer effective.
On August 13, the Court entered an order extending the stay to September 9. In addition, the Court denied Defendants' pending motion to dismiss, but did so "without prejudice to refiling" or to the "filing of a revised motion to dismiss." Doc. No. 11. Given the significant change in circumstances brought about by the NDAA, Defendants intend to file a revised motion to dismiss (in lieu of an answer), unless further discussions among the parties lead to voluntary dismissal. To allow additional time for such further discussions, and to free Defendants of the duty to file an answer to the complaint, as triggered by denial of its original motion to dismiss, Defendants request, and Plaintiffs do not oppose, an order setting the following schedule:
Plaintiffs to advise whether they
will dismiss the action or not October 8, 2015
If not, Defendants' revised
motion to dismiss is due October 20, 2015
Plaintiffs' opposition
brief is due November 10, 2015
Defendants' reply
brief is due November 24, 2015
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Proposed Discovery Order or Motion to Stay Discovery is due by October 20, 2015.
