Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01612/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01612-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:7413(b) Clean Air Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MATTHEW B. HIPPLER (Cal. Bar No. 212036)

HOLLAND & HART LLP

5441 Kietzke Lane, Second Floor

Reno, NV 89511

Tel: (775) 327-3000

Fax: (775) 786-6179

mbhippler@hollandhart.com

STEVEN G. JONES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

EMILY C. SCHILLING (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

HOLLAND & HART LLP

222 So. Main Street, Suite 2200

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Tel: (801) 799-5800

Fax: (801) 799-5700

sgjones@hollandhart.com

ecschilling@hollandhart.com

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLOBAL COMMUNITY MONITOR, a 

California nonprofit corporation; 

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL 

UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 

UNION NO. 783, an organized labor 

union; RANDAL SIPES, JR., an 

individual; RUSSEL COVINGTON, an 

individual; 

Plaintiffs,

v.

MAMMOTH PACIFIC, L.P., a California 

Limited Partnership; ORMAT NEVADA, 

INC., a Delaware Corporation; ORMAT 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a Delaware 

Corporation; and DOES I-X, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR 

COMPLAINT AND FOR 

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr.

HOLLAND 

&

HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200

SALT 

LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 84101

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 63 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

HOLLAND 

&

HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200

SALT 

LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 84101

RECITALS 

1. On March 22, 2016, Plaintiffs transmitted a letter providing Notice of Intent to Sue Under 

the Clean Air Act to Defendants Mammoth Pacific, L.P., Ormat Nevada, Inc. and Ormat 

Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Ormat”). In their letter, Plaintiffs provided Ormat with notice of 

their intent to amend their existing Complaint and outlined the bases under which Plaintiffs maintained 

such an amendment would be appropriate. 

2. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiffs provided Ormat with a copy of their proposed First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for review and requested that Ormat stipulate to Plaintiffs filing of the 

FAC. 

3. On May 20, 2016, Ormat responded to both Plaintiffs’ March 22, 2016 Notice of Intent to 

Sue and Plaintiffs’ proposed FAC with a letter and other documents. In its letter, Ormat declined to 

stipulate to Plaintiffs filing of their proposed FAC. 

4. The Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 31) provides that “[n]o joinder of parties 

or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause being shown.” Dkt No. 

31 at 1:24-25. Based on Ormat’s refusal to stipulate to Plaintiffs’ filing of the FAC, Plaintiffs have 

elected to move the Court for leave to amend their complaint and to file the FAC. 

5. The Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order established September 15, 2016 as the last day to 

hear dispositive motions. Dkt No. 31 at 4:2. In order to comply with the briefing deadlines set in the 

Pretrial Scheduling Order, the parties agreed to file their initial dispositive motions on July 8, 2016.

6. Local Rule 230(b) provides that civil motions are to be filed at least twenty-eight (28) 

days prior to the date such motions are noted for hearing. The parties agree that having a decision on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is necessary in order for them to determine the appropriate 

scope of any dispositive motions. 

7. In order to allow sufficient time for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Leave to Amend 

which complies with the scheduling requirements of Local Rule 230(b) and which also allows the 

parties time to take account of the Court’s decision on that Motion, the parties have agreed to an 

amendment of the case schedule as outlined below.

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 63 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

HOLLAND 

&

HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200

SALT 

LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 84101

STIPULATION

1. The parties stipulate to the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 

Amend Their Complaint:

June 14, 2016: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend filed;

June 28, 2016: Ormat’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend due;

July 7, 2016: Plaintiffs’ reply on their Motion for Leave to Amend due:

July 14, 2016: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

2. In order to allow time for the Court to decide Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend and 

provide the parties sufficient time to account for the Court’s decision in their dispositive motions, the 

parties stipulate to an extension of the dispositive motion cutoff and to a briefing schedule for 

dispositive motions as follows:

August 11, 2016: Initial dispositive motions filed;

September 1, 2016: Opposition briefs and any cross-motions due;

September 15, 2016: Reply briefs and opposition to cross-motions due;

September 29, 2016: Reply briefs on cross-motions (if any) due;

October 6, 2016: Hearing on dispositive motions and cross-motions (if any).

3. The parties also stipulate that, in the event the Court has not issued a decision on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend by August 5, 2016, the schedule for dispositive motions shall 

be extended by the number of days between August 5, 2016, and the date of the Court’s decision on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, with dispositive motions being noted for the next available 

hearing date on the Court’s calendar eight (8) weeks following the date of the Court’s decision on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

4. The parties agree that the extension of the dispositive motion cutoff and any further 

extension of the dispositive motion cutoff required by the timing of the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Leave to Amend will not result in a modification to any of the other deadlines established 

in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order.

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 63 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

HOLLAND 

&

HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200

SALT 

LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 84101

5. If the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, the parties agree to allow 

designated experts to submit addendums to their expert reports and rebuttals to those addendums and 

to allow for further deposition testimony in relation to the new claims as may be necessary. 

So Stipulated this 13th day of June, 2016:

HOLLAND & HART LLP

s/ Steven G. Jones

MATTHEW HIPPLER

STEVEN G. JONES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

EMILY C. SCHILLING (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Defendants

LOZEAU | DRURY

s/ Douglas Chermak 

RICHARD DRURY

DOUGLAS CHERMAK

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ORDER

Based on the parties’ Stipulation as outlined above, the Court enters the following Order:

1. The Court sets the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 

Amend Their Complaint:

June 14, 2016: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend filed;

June 28, 2016: Ormat’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend due;

July 7, 2016: Plaintiffs’ reply on their Motion for Leave to Amend due:

July 14, 2016: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 63 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS - 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

HOLLAND 

&

HART LLP

222 SO. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2200

SALT 

LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 84101

2. The Court extends the dispositive motion cutoff from September 15, 2016 to October 6, 

2016, and establishes the briefing schedule for dispositive motions as follows:

August 11, 2016: Initial dispositive motions filed;

September 1, 2016: Opposition briefs and any cross-motions due;

September 15, 2016: Reply briefs and opposition to cross-motions due;

September 29, 2016: Reply briefs on cross-motions (if any) due;

October 6, 2016: Hearing on dispositive motions and cross-motions (if any).

3. In the event the Court has not issued a decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend 

by August 5, 2016, the schedule for dispositive motions shall be extended by the number of days 

between August 5, 2016 and the date of the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 

Amend, with dispositive motions being noted for the next available hearing date on the Court’s 

calendar eight (8) weeks following the date of the Court’s decision on the Motion for Leave to Amend.

4. Apart from the schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend and the extension of 

the dispositive motion cutoff outlined in this Order and any extension of the dispositive motion cutoff 

required by the timing of the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, all other 

deadlines established in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 63 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 5