Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

February 26, 2014

DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
S.M.R. JEWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. Defendants.

John Briscoe, Lawrence S. Bazel, Peter S. Prows, BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ryan R. Waterman, STOEL RIVES LLP, San Diego, CA, Zachary Walton, SSL LAW FIRM LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY and KEVIN LUNNY

MELINDA L. HAAG, United States Attorney, ALEX G. TSE, Chief, Civil Division, ROBERT G. DREHER, Acting Assistant Attorney General.

STEPHEN M. MACFARLANE, Senior Attorney, JOSEPH T. MATHEWS, E. BARRETT ATWOOD, Trial Attorneys, Attorneys for Defendants.

JOINT STATUS UPDATE; STIPULATION; [PROPOSED]ORDER

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

JOINT STATUS UPDATE

On February 4, 2013, this Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #89).

On February 6, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from that Order (Doc. #90).

On February 25, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order, inter alia, granting Plaintiffs an injunction pending appeal and expediting the calendaring of that appeal.

On September 3, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming this Court's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

On September 30, this Court entered an Order (Doc. #113), inter alia, staying Defendants' response to the Amended Complaint (Doc. #44) pending the filing by Plaintiffs of a Second Amended Complaint, and giving Plaintiffs until not more than 28 days following the issuance of the mandate by the Ninth Circuit to file a Second Amended Complaint.

On October 18, Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit.

On November 12, this Court entered an Order (Doc. #117) that provided in pertinent part:

If the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc by five (5) business days prior to March 3, the parties shall submit a joint status update so informing the Court. The parties may also contact the Courtroom Deputy to advance the Case Management Conference date, if necessary.

On January 14, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order, inter alia, denying Plaintiffs' ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.