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.

Our Children's Earth Foundation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 23, 2013

OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION and ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants.

OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dist. Court, ND California 2013

ROBERT G. DREHER, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, SETH M. BARSKY, Chief, KRISTEN L. GUSTAFSON, Assistant Chief, ETHAN CARSON EDDY, Trial Attorney (Cal. Bar 237214), Wildlife and Marine Resources Section, Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendants.

Christopher Sproul (State Bar No. 126398), Environmental Advocates, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

STIPULATION TO STAY PLAINTIFFS' PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND [ PROPOSED] ORDER

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(b), Plaintiffs Our Children's Earth Foundation and Ecological Rights Foundation, and Defendants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jared Blumenthal, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9; National Marine Fisheries Service; Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce; Rodney McInnis, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region; U.S. Department of the Interior; S.M.R. Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior; and Ren Lohoefener, Regional Administrator, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region, ("Defendants") hereby stipulate and respectfully request of the Court an order staying Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) until the Court rules on a motion to dismiss the Defendants intend to file (which will address the claims raised in Plaintiffs' pending partial summary judgment motion). Plaintiffs filed their Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on September 2, 2013 and the deadline for Defendants to respond to that motion is currently September 16, 2013.

There is good cause for this request because Defendants have not yet filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' complaint and the parties have not yet filed the Joint Case Management Statement, currently due September 20, 2013. The parties have reached agreement upon and will submit a briefing schedule to the Court in the Joint Case Management Statement, by which Defendants will move to dismiss all or part of the complaint prior to engaging in any summary judgment motion practice. The parties believe that it is in the interests of the parties and judicial economy for the motion to dismiss to be adjudicated, and for the overarching schedule for this case to be set by the Court following the initial case management conference (set for September 27, 2013), prior to litigating any summary judgment motions, including Plaintiffs' pending partial summary judgment motion. Defendants' motion to dismiss is currently due September 20, 2013, and the parties are concurrently filing a stipulation to extend that deadline to September 30, 2013 pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a).

For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the attached order staying Plaintiffs' pending motion for partial summary judgment until the Court rules on Defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss.

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of September, 2013.

E-FILING ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5.1(i)(3), I attest that Christopher Sproul has concurred in the filing of this document.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The above STIPULATION TO STAY PLAINTIFFS' PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is STAYED pending the Court's adjudication of Defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss. Defendants shall not respond to the partial motion for summary judgment until twenty-one days after a ruling on the motion to dismiss. The December 6, 2013 hearing on the motion is VACATED.


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.