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.

Los Padres Forestwatch v. Hernandez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


October 26, 2010

LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PEGGY HERNANDEZ, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FOREST SUPERVISOR FOR THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER SEEKING CLARIFICATION RE: PARTIES' SECOND JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, (re: docket #27)

On October 26, 2010, the parties filed a "Second Joint Stipulated Request to Continue Preliminary Injunction." See Dkt. #27. In this filing, the parties state that they "believe that they will able to achieve a global settlement once FWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] issues its decision regarding consultation on the Project." Apparently, on or around October 13, 2010, FWS informed the Defendants, who then in turn informed Plaintiff, that FWS would require 30 days (which "should be" on or around November 13, 2010) to respond to the parties' request for FWS consultation on the Project.

The Court appreciates the parties' good faith efforts at settlement. Before granting a second continuance request, however, the Court orders the parties to clarify why certain issues, which are apparently holding up a "global settlement," were not raised with the Court in a far more timely manner. First, the parties, or at least Defendants, were aware on or around October 13, 2010 that a FWS decision regarding consultation on the Project would take 30 days to issue. Yet, the parties only identified the pending FWS decision to the Court on October 26, 2010 -- just a week before the pending hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The parties must explain this delay, and further explain why they failed to mention the need for a FWS decision sooner.

two-day extension of time to October 27, 2010 to file Defendants' responsive brief to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkt. #25. The Court expressed hesitation about granting this request with the pending hearing so near, but ultimately granted the joint stipulation based on the parties' representations that this two-day extension would allow the parties' time "to reach a global settlement on all issues in this matter." The parties must explain why they did not inform the Court of the need for a FWS decision in their October 25, 2010 joint stipulation, and why they represented that a two-day extension would allow time for "global settlement."

of dismissal with the Court, and not submit multiple (and untimely) requests for continuances. In any event, the parties must answer the questions identified above in a filing with the Court by Wednesday, October 27, 2010. The parties are expected to act in a more prompt and timely manner in all future interactions with the Court.

Second, just yesterday, on October 25, 2010, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting a If the parties believe settlement is appropriate, their proper course is to submit a stipulation

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101026

© 1992-2010 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.