Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Allen v. U.S., 1:16-cv-04403. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170828730 Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REQUESTING SECOND AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1 and Civil L.R. 6-2, the Parties, through their undersigned legal counsel, hereby stipulate and request as follows: 1. August 21, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting the Federal Defendants request to file their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment to September 12, 2017. In the Order, the Court also continued the h
More

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REQUESTING SECOND AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1 and Civil L.R. 6-2, the Parties, through their undersigned legal counsel, hereby stipulate and request as follows:

1. August 21, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting the Federal Defendants request to file their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment to September 12, 2017. In the Order, the Court also continued the hearing date on the parties cross-motions for summary judgment to September 27, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.

2. Under the current briefing schedule, Plaintiffs are required to file their reply brief ("Reply") in support of their motion for summary judgment and response to Federal Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment on August 25, 2017.

3. Counsel for the Plaintiffs has a hearing scheduled in San Diego tomorrow in the case of United States of America v. Fallbrook Public Utilities, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 51 cv 1247 GPC and a brief due this Friday, August 25, 2017, in support of the Defendant's, Ho-Chunk Nation's, motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case of Stockbridge-Munsee v. State of Wisconsin, et. al., United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-cv-249-JDP.

4. In addition, unexpectedly, on August 16, 2017, the Northern California Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs rendered a decision that required Plaintiffs' Counsel, on behalf of a current client, other than the plaintiffs in this case, to begin drafting a federal court complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the current client from suffering irreparable harm. As a result, Plaintiffs' Counsel needs additional time to prepare and file its Reply in this case.

5. The parties, therefore, have agreed that Plaintiffs' Counsel's Reply shall be filed on or before August 30, 2017.

6. This request, granting the Plaintiffs a three day continuance to file their Reply, will not change the September 12, 2017, date scheduled for Federal Defendants to file their reply to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment or the September 27, 2017, date for the hearing on the motions.

ORDER

Having read the forgoing Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs will file their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before August 30, 2017.

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