United States District Court, E.D. California
February 19, 2014
RIDGE TOP RANCH, LLC, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; and DANIEL M. ASHE, in his official capacity as DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendants.
Jerry Stouck, - Pro Hac Vice Kurt A. Kappes, Anthony J. Cortez, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
ROBERT G. DREHER, Acting Assistant Attorney General, SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief, KRISTEN L. GUSTAFSON, Asst. Section Chief, BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL, Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section Denver, CO. JEREMY HESSLER, Trial Attorney, Wildlife & Marine Resources Section, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for the Federal Defendants.
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, Judge.
Plaintiff and Federal Defendants, by and through counsel, hereby STIPULATE as follows:
1. The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed on November 26, 2013 and served on the United States Attorney's Office the same day.
2. The initial responsive pleading deadline was January 27, 2014.
3. On January 22, 2014, due to the pending motion for preliminary injunction, the parties invoked the stipulated extension of time available under Local Rule 144(a) to respond to a complaint, extending the responsive pleading deadline to February 24, 2014.
4. After that extension of time, the Court moved the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction to February 21, 2014.
5. The parties agree that the February 21, 2014 hearing may inform future proceedings in the case and judicial efficiency would be better served by a second extension of the responsive pleading deadline.
6. As noted in Plaintiff's initial status report filed February 10, 2014, after the February 21, 2014 hearing Plaintiff may (or may not) file an amended complaint.
7. Accordingly, the parties propose that the responsive pleading deadline be extended until the earlier of: (1) twenty-eight (28) days after the Court's ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction or (2) twenty-eight (28) days from the filing of any amended complaint, should the amended complaint be filed after the February 21, 2014 hearing. If granted, the extension would not prejudice Federal Defendants from responding sooner, should the circumstances so dictate.
8. If granted, this would be the second extension of time in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.