BAYKEEPER v. ROYAL GOLD, LLC, 16-cv-06285-RS. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161206880
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Defendant Royal Gold requests an extension of time to file its response to Plaintiff Humbolt Baykeeper's complaint. Royal Gold notes that Humbolt Baykeeper has filed a relevant administrative challenge, which is set to be heard by the Humbolt County Board of Supervisors ("Board of Supervisors") on December 6, 2016. Royal Gold contends that the Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on that challenge either at the hearing
Summary: ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Defendant Royal Gold requests an extension of time to file its response to Plaintiff Humbolt Baykeeper's complaint. Royal Gold notes that Humbolt Baykeeper has filed a relevant administrative challenge, which is set to be heard by the Humbolt County Board of Supervisors ("Board of Supervisors") on December 6, 2016. Royal Gold contends that the Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on that challenge either at the hearing o..
More
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
Defendant Royal Gold requests an extension of time to file its response to Plaintiff Humbolt Baykeeper's complaint. Royal Gold notes that Humbolt Baykeeper has filed a relevant administrative challenge, which is set to be heard by the Humbolt County Board of Supervisors ("Board of Supervisors") on December 6, 2016. Royal Gold contends that the Board of Supervisors is expected to vote on that challenge either at the hearing or shortly thereafter. Humbolt Baykeeper opposes the extension citing concerns about its ability to begin discovery during the "rainy season." Good cause appearing, Royal Gold shall have until January 6, 2017 to answer Humbolt Baykeeper's complaint. In the future, the parties are encouraged to confer and reach agreement about scheduling issues without expending judicial resources.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties are also encouraged to review the local rules; Royal Gold's request was improperly styled as an ex parte motion.
Source: Leagle
