Sarah Uhlemann (WA Bar No. 41164)* Center for Biological Diversity Seattle, WA.
Brendan Cummings (CA Bar No. 193952), Center for Biological Diversity, Joshua Tree, CA.
Miyoko Sakashita (CA Bar No. 239639), Center for Biological Diverstiy, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
ROBERT G. DREHER, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division MEREDITH L. FLAX, Senior Trial Attorney, D.C. Bar No. 468016 Wildlife & Marine Resources Section KRISTOFOR SWANSON, Trial Attorney, (CO Bar No. 39378) Natural Resources Section Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendatns.
JOINT SCHEDULE AND STIPULATION
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTROG, District Judge.
Pursuant to the Court's October 8, 2013 Order and Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, 7-12, and 16-2, the Parties jointly propose and stipulate to the following schedule for further proceedings in this case:
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2012, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Pacific Environment, and Turtle Island Restoration Network filed this action against Defendants Export-Import Bank of the United States and Fred P. Hochberg, in his official capacity as Chairman and President of the Bank. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"), and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in funding a natural gas project located in Queensland, Australia. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs served Defendants with the Complaint on or around December 20, 2012;
WHEREAS, the initial case management conference for this case was scheduled for March 14, 2013, with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Certification, Stipulation/Notice of Need for ADR Conference, and meet and confer due February 21, 2013, and the Case Management Statement due March 7, 2013. Dkt. No. 2;
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2013, this case was re-assigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings, Dkt. No. 13, and the Court later rescheduled the initial case management conference for May 22, 2013, Dkt. No. 16;
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case. Dkt. No. 15;
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2013, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Stay Initial Case Deadlines Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Transfer. Dkt. No. 17. Plaintiffs indicated their intention to amend their Complaint and the Parties requested to postpone the deadlines for filing Defendants' Answer or other response to the Complaint, the Case Management Statement, and ADR statements, the deadline to meet and confer, and the date for the case management conference. The Parties stipulated that, should the Court deny the motion to transfer, the Parties would submit a proposed schedule within ten days of such denial;
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2013, the Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion to Stay Initial Case Deadlines. Dkt. No. 19;
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2013, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Transfer. Dkt. No. 25;
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2013, the Parties filed a Joint Proposed Schedule and Stipulation for further proceedings in this case, which the Court signed on October 1, 2013. Dkt. No. 27. The Court further scheduled a telephonic Case Management Conference on October 31, 2013 at 3:15 pm and ordered the parties to file a joint Case ...