Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Center for Food Safety v. Perdue, 4:18-cv-04633-HSG. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181005a72 Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2018
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE AND PROPOSED ORDER HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . The parties in this action, Center for Food Safety, Center for Environmental Health, Sonny Perdue, Bruce Summers, and the United States Department of Agriculture (Parties) state as follows through undersigned counsel. 1. On July 29, 2016, Congress enacted the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards Act (the Act), 7 U.S.C. 1639 et seq. legislation requiring, inter alia, the Sec
More

JOINT STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE AND PROPOSED ORDER

The parties in this action, Center for Food Safety, Center for Environmental Health, Sonny Perdue, Bruce Summers, and the United States Department of Agriculture (Parties) state as follows through undersigned counsel.

1. On July 29, 2016, Congress enacted the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards Act (the Act), 7 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq. legislation requiring, inter alia, the Secretary of Agriculture to establish, within two years, a national uniform mandatory disclosure standard for bioengineered foods, 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(a).

2. Defendants, despite their best efforts, did not issue the final rules by the July 29, 2018 deadline specified by the Act.

3. On August 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this action, alleging that Defendants have violated the Act by missing the express deadline, and seeking relief from the Court establishing a new deadline by which Defendants must issue the final rule implementing the Act.

4. On September 6, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing there are no issues of material fact and the only legal issue is that Defendants have missed the statutory deadline. See Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 15, at 1.

5. On September 20, 2018, Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but also indicated Defendants' intent to issue the final rules "as soon as practicable after the 90-day review period" mandated by Executive Order 12,866, is complete." Defs.' Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 18, at 1.

6. Over the past week, the parties have been discussing potential settlement and the issuance of the final rule. Defendants have indicated that USDA believes it will have additional information about the timing of the rule's final issuance after November 29, 2018.

7. Accordingly, the parties believe it is in the best interest of judicial efficiency and economy to stay the case for 60 days, until December 3, 2018 (including all pending party deadlines, including Plaintiffs' summary judgment reply and Defendants' answer).

8. On or before December 3, 2018, the parties will meet and confer and file a status report with the Court, that will either resume proceedings, including briefing in advance of the noticed January 10, 2019 summary judgment hearing date, or provide further update on USDA's plans to issue the final rule.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The above JOINT STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE is approved and this case is hereby STAYED for 60 days, until December 3, 2018. On or before December 3, 2018, parties will meet and confer, and file a status report with the Court.

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