Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

California River Watch v. County of Fresno, 1:14-cv-01501-MJS. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141031919 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 30, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING PLEADINGS AND CONTINUING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE DATE MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge. RECITALS In plaintiff's original Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant, COUNTY OF FRESNO ("the County"), violated provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"), 42 U.S.C. 300f, et seq . The County filed its Answer to Complaint (Doc. # 5) on October 21, 2014. After the County filed its Answer, the parties filed pleadings consenting to the jurisdiction o
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING PLEADINGS AND CONTINUING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE DATE

MICHAEL J. SENG, Magistrate Judge.

RECITALS

In plaintiff's original Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant, COUNTY OF FRESNO ("the County"), violated provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f, et seq. The County filed its Answer to Complaint (Doc. # 5) on October 21, 2014. After the County filed its Answer, the parties filed pleadings consenting to the jurisdiction of U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. In response, the Court entered a text-only minute order reassigning the case to Judge Seng. (Doc. # 9.) Thereafter, the Court entered another text-only minute order setting an Initial Scheduling Conference for December 11, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (Judge Seng's courtroom). (Doc. # 10.)

On September 25, 2014, plaintiff also served upon the County a notice of intent to sue under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901, et seq. Plaintiff avers that the RCRA notice is founded upon the same basic set of facts as the instant lawsuit, which presently contains only an SDWA-based claim for relief. Plaintiff further avers that plaintiff is precluded from filing a RCRA-based suit until 90 days after service of the RCRA notice. Plaintiff further avers that plaintiff intends to amend the above-referenced lawsuit to include a RCRA-based claim for relief, but cannot do so until after the Court's recently-calendared Initial Scheduling Conference (again: December 11, 2014).

The parties agree that optimally, the operative pleadings — complaint and answer — should be settled before a Joint Scheduling Report is required to be filed and an Initial Scheduling Conference is to be held. For that reason, the parties stipulate and agree as provided below.

STIPULATION

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that:

1. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint no later than January 8, 2015.

2. The County may file a pleading responsive to the First Amended Complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days after plaintiff files and serves the First Amended Complaint.

3. On or before February 12, 2015, the parties shall file in CM/ECF, and e-mail to mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov, a Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared by the parties and signed by all counsel.

4. An Initial Scheduling Conference shall be, and is, set for February 19, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (MJS), before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng.

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the foregoing recitals and stipulation in Case No. 1:14-cv-01501-MJS, and finding good cause exists, hereby ORDERS the stipulation APPROVED.

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