CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. PRUITT

Case No. 3:16-cv-5492-TEH.

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT PRUITT, in his official capacity as the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant.

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

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Nature of Suit: 893 Environmental Matters
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Carter Evans , Center for Biological Diversity.

Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Ukeiley , Law Office of Robert Ukeiley, pro hac vice.

Center for Environmental Health, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Carter Evans , Center for Biological Diversity & Robert Ukeiley , Law Office of Robert Ukeiley, pro hac vice.

Gina McCarthy, Defendant, represented by Leslie M. Hill , Environment & Natural Resources Division.


JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR FILING REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EPA'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(b), Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Environmental Health and Defendant Scott Pruitt, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), hereby stipulate to and request that Court enter an order to extend the deadline for EPA to file its Reply In Support of EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment from August 17, 2017 to August 24, 2017. On February 27, 2017, pursuant to the parties' request for the briefing schedule as set forth in their Joint Case Management Statement (Dkt. No. 32), the Court set the following schedule:

Deadline Due Date EPA's Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs' July 13, 2017 Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Combined Reply in Support of August 3, 2017 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment EPA's Reply in Support of EPA's Cross-Motion August 17, 2017 for Summary Judgment Hearing September 11, 2017

The date set for EPA's reply brief, August 17, 2017, conflicts with EPA counsel's recently scheduled vacation. Therefore, the parties respectfully request to reset the deadline to August 24, 2017. This extension will not alter the date of the hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment set for September 11, 2017 or any other event or deadline already fixed by Court order. See Declaration of Leslie M. Hill (attached as Exhibit A).

Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order resetting the deadline for EPA to file its Reply In Support of EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment to August 24, 2017.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to Stipulation and for good cause shown, the Order Setting Schedule (Dkt. No. 22) is hereby revised as follows:

Deadline Due Date EPA's Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs' July 13, 2017 Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Combined Reply in Support of August 3, 2017 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment EPA's Reply in Support of EPA's Cross-Motion August 24, 2017 for Summary Judgment Hearing September 11, 2017

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases