Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baykeeper v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 18, 2008

HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER, A PROGRAM OF ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, AND ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, NORTH COAST RAILROAD AUTHORITY, A STATE AGENCY, AND CUE VI, LLC, AN ALASKA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Jeffrey S. White

STIPULATED REQUEST TO VACATE AND CONTINUE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER Pretrial Conf.: August 18, 2008 Time: 2:00 p.m. Place: Courtroom 2

Plaintiffs Humboldt Baykeeper and Ecological Rights Foundation and Defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company, CUE VI, LLC, and North Coast Railroad Authority (collectively, the "Parties") file this motion to bring to the Court's attention a scheduling problem. The Court's Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in Civil Bench Cases requires the parties to serve motions in limine by July 21, 2008, serve oppositions to those motions by July 29, and by August 4 file a joint pretrial statement and other documents. However, until the Parties receive the Court's ruling on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment, directed to all counts of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, the Parties cannot know the issues that the Court's ruling may eliminate for trial, and cannot prepare documents responsive to the Court's ruling. Submission of pretrial documents prior to the Court's ruling is likely to be unnecessarily voluminous and may address issues disposed of by the Court's ruling. The Parties are thus in need of the Court's ruling on the cross-motions to prepare for trial.

Therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, and this Court's Civil Standing Order, ¶ 3, the Parties in the above-captioned case hereby stipulate and jointly request that this Court issue an order vacating and continuing the August 18, 2008 Pretrial Conference and associated deadlines.

Defendants request that the Court continue the Pretrial Conference until September 2, 2008 and oppose continuation of the September 15, 2008 Trial date.

Plaintiffs request that the Court continue the Pretrial Conference until a reasonable time after the Court issues its decision on the Parties' pending motions for summary judgment and set a Case Management Conference for August 18, 2008, or for 10 days after the Court rules on the Parties' respective motions for summary judgment, whichever is sooner, for the purpose of resetting dates and, as necessary, to clarify issues to be tried.

The parties jointly declare the following in support of this request:

WHEREAS, the Court's October 15, 2007 Scheduling Order set a Pretrial Conference for August 18, 2008 and a bench Trial date of September 15, 2008; and

WHEREAS, commencing on July 21, 2008 and prior to the August 18, 2008 Pretrial Conference, the parties must, inter alia, exchange, oppose and file their motions in limine for the Court's decision, submit a Final Pretrial Order for the Court's review, confer regarding trial exhibits and evidence issues, and file for the Court's review their respective Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with separate Trial Briefs; and

WHEREAS, the Court heard arguments on June 13, 2008 and presently has under submission Plaintiffs' and Defendants' respective motions for summary judgment on all three counts of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, the Court's rulings on these pending summary judgment motions may moot and/or narrow claims, issues, evidence, and disputes for trial; and,

WHEREAS, consequently, the Court's rulings on the pending summary judgment motions may significantly modify the scope, volume, and content of the parties' respective Pretrial Conference filings and motions, as identified above, due to be considered and decided by the Court; and

WHEREAS, the Parties believe that it would best serve judicial economy for this Court to issue the requested Order; and

WHEREAS, the Parties have conferred and determined that the requested Order would be in the agreed best interests of the Parties and have a beneficial effect on the narrowing of issues and the efficient trial of this case; and

WHEREAS, the Parties reserve their respective rights to move to limit, exclude and otherwise object to evidence and to withdraw, modify, and otherwise address such existing motions and objections as warranted by any orders of this Court; and

WHEREAS, the Parties have sought three previous modifications to the deadlines in this case and the Court upon its own motion has modified the deadlines twice, including continuing the hearing date for the Parties' summary judgment motions to June 13, 2008;

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs and Defendants hereby jointly request that the Court issue an order vacating and continuing the August 18, 2008 Pretrial Conference and associated deadlines. Defendants request that the Court continue the Pretrial Conference until September 2, 2008 and oppose continuation of the September 15, 2008 Trial date.

Plaintiffs request that the Court continue the Pretrial Conference until a reasonable time after the Court issues its decision on the Parties' pending motions for summary judgment and set a Case Management Conference for August 18, 2008, or for 10 days after the Court rules on the Parties' respective motions for summary judgment, whichever is sooner, for the purpose of resetting dates and, as necessary, to clarify issues to be tried.

Dated: July 16, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

RIGHTS FOUNDATION

Dated: July 17, 2008

ATTESTATION

I, Jeffrey K. Lee, am counsel for Plaintiffs and the registered ECF user whose username and password are being used to file this Stipulated Request to Vacate and Continue Pretrial Conference and Associated Dates and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45 X.B, I hereby attest that the above-identified counsel for Defendants concurred in this filing.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

After consideration of the Parties' Stipulated Request to Vacate and Continue Pretrial Conference and Associated Dates and for good cause appearing:

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that the Court (1) vacates and continues the August 18, 2008 Pretrial Conference and associated deadlines; (2) resets the Pretrial Conference for __________________________ at ___ a.m./p.m. and vacated the trial date. The Court will reset these dates, if necessary, in its order resoloving the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20080718

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.