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.

Sequoia Forestkeeper v. United States Forest Service

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 16, 2011

SEQUOIA FORESTKEEPER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: The Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill

DATE: March 2, 2011

TIME: 8:30 a.m.

UNOPPOSED MOTION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants United States Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, and Tina Terrell (hereafter the "Federal Defendants") move the Court for its Order pursuant to Local Rule 230(f), continuing the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Document 86] currently set for March 2, 2011, for one week, to and until March 9, 2011, to give the parties additional time to consider whether an agreement can be reached with regard to one of the issues raised by Plaintiff's motion, all as set forth more fully below. Plaintiff does not oppose the requested continuance.

This motion is made more than seven (7) days before the scheduled hearing date, as required by Local Rule 230(f).

One of the issues raised by Plaintiff in its Motion for Reconsideration deals with the Clean Water Act. Upon review of the motion, and further review of the briefs and the Court's Order on Summary Judgment [Document 80], it appears that the facts related to this issue may not have been fully developed in the administrative record, and that the legal argument presented by the Federal Defendants in their briefing may not have accurately reflected the position of the United States. The parties are conferring with regard to whether agreement can be reached on how this issue should be addressed with the Court, and what relief may be requested. Additional time is needed to complete these discussions between the Federal Defendants and Plaintiff before the Federal Defendants' response to the Motion for Reconsideration must be filed. That response is currently due to be filed on February 16, 2011.

This motion is not made for the purpose of vexation or delay, but to facilitate efficiency by ensuring that the parties have an opportunity to fully explore the possibility of agreement with regard to a major issue raised by the pending motion.

Based on the foregoing, and without opposition by Plaintiff, the Federal Defendants respectfully request this Court to vacate the March 2, 2011, hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider [Doc. 86], and continue that hearing until March 9, 2011 at 8:30am.

Respectfully Submitted,

DATED: February 15, 2011 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney By: /s/ J. Earlene Gordon J. EARLENE GORDON Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

It is so ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110216

© 1992-2011 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.