UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 4, 2010
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; DIRK KEMPTHORE, AN INDIVIDUAL IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JIM CASWELL, AN INDIVIDUAL IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge
[Motion filed on March 2, 2010]
ORDER (1) VACATING HEARING SET FOR MAY 10, 2010 at 2 P.M., (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, and (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT
The Court has received and considered all papers filed in support of the Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents United States of America, Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"); Ken L. Salazar, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; Robert V. Abbey, in his official capacity as Director of the BLM; and DOES 1 through 25, each in their official capacities as officers, agents, or employees of the United States Department of the Interior ("DOI") or the BLM (collectively, "Respondents"). Respondent's Motion is appropriate for resolution without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. The Court VACATES the hearing set for May 10, 2010 at 2 p.m.
Petitioner County of San Bernardino ("Petitioner") filed a "Petition for Writ of Mandate to Compel United States of America, Bureau of Land Management, et al. to Process Application for Recordable Disclaimer" ("Complaint") on January 14, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) In the Complaint, Petitioner alleges Respondents have unreasonably delayed in issuing a decision on its "Application for Recordable Disclaimer of Interest for Camp Rock Road" ("Application").
On March 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and a Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law, set for a hearing June 15, 2010. (Doc. Nos. 39-40.) On March 30, 2010, Respondents filed a "Motion to Dismiss the Case" or in the alternative a "Continuance of Time to File Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment." (Doc. No. 44.)
On March 19, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"). In the Motion, Respondents argue the Complaint is moot because the BLM issued a decision on Petitioner's Application on March 26, 2010, which Respondents' attach to the Motion as Exhibit 1. On April 19, 2010, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.
Under Local Rule 7-9, a party must file opposition papers no later than 21 days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion. Petitioner filed no timely opposition. Under Local Rule 7-12, the Court finds Petitioner has consented to granting the Motion and accordingly DISMISSES Petitioner's Complaint, without prejudice. The Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.