Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01505-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

30

31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER STAVRIANOUDAKIS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, et al.,

 Defendants.

NO. 1:18-CV-01505-NONE-BAM

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. No. 61) 

On October 30, 2018, plaintiffs Peter Stavrianoudakis, Katherine Stavrianoudakis, Eric Ariyoshi, 

Scott Timmons, and the American Falconry Conservancy filed this suit against the federal and state 

defendants. (See Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC”) on January 18, 2019. 

(Doc. No. 16.) The FAC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on constitutional and statutory 

challenges to federal and state regulations governing the sport/practice of falconry in California. (Id.) 

More specifically, plaintiffs challenge certain falconry regulations under the Fourth Amendment’s 

prohibition against unreasonable searches, and other falconry regulations under the First Amendment’s 

Free Speech Clause. (Id.) 

On January 28, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 17.) On 

March 15, 2019, the Federal Defendants and the State Defendant each filed a motion to dismiss and an 

opposition to the preliminary injunction motion. (Doc. Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27.) On March 29, 2019, 

plaintiff replied in connection with its motion for preliminary injunction and filed an opposition to the 

Case 1:18-cv-01505-JLT-BAM Document 63 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 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

28

30

31

motions to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 37, 38.) Defendants filed replies in early April 2019. (Doc. Nos. 41, 42, 

44.) In addition, an amicus brief was filed by the North American Falconers Association (Doc. No. 33), 

to which plaintiffs replied. (Doc. No. 40.) The motions can be fairly characterized as lengthy and 

complex. 

On January 24, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss in 

part and denying them in part. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the Fourth 

Amendment claims and that two of the plaintiffs (Katherine Stavrianoudakis and Eric Ariyoshi) lacked 

standing to pursue the First Amendment claims. The court dismissed the claims for which there was no 

standing with leave to amend. The motions to dismiss were denied in all other respects. (Doc. No. 59 at 

53-54.) The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction with respect to the Fourth Amendment 

claims because the plaintiffs lacked standing. (See id. at 50.) Finally, the court requested supplemental 

briefing with respect to the First Amendment claims. (See id. at 54.) The court set a deadline of thirty 

days from the date of the order for the defendants to file their supplemental briefs, making the current 

filing deadline February 24, 2020. (See id. at 54.) 

On February 19, 2020, in advance of the deadline, defendants filed a request for an extension, 

seeking an additional thirty days to allow counsel to complete consultations with relevant federal and 

state decisionmakers responsible for overseeing design and implementation of the challenged 

regulations. (See Doc. No. 59.) 

Plaintiffs object to the requested extension, indicating that while they “would not, in the ordinary 

course of litigation, refuse to agree to routine requests for scheduling accommodations, and have 

reached multiple stipulations in this case previously with the Defendants regarding scheduling,” they 

“have been seeking preliminary injunctive relief for more than a year and are not in a position to 

concede additional delays absent good cause.” (Doc. No. 62.) 

Plaintiffs concede the nature of the good cause standard. (Id. at 3.) Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 6(b) permits a party to move the court, upon a showing of good cause, for an extension of 

time within which to file a brief. 

Plaintiffs cry “fowl” but the court is not persuaded. The “delay” plaintiffs attempt to assign to 

defendants is the result of this court’s extraordinary workload coupled with the complexity of the issues 

Case 1:18-cv-01505-JLT-BAM Document 63 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 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

28

30

31

presented. Plaintiffs suggest that this court should not permit the extension because the court has 

already found irreparable First Amendment harm. In support of this argument, plaintiffs cite the court’s 

reasoning that for purposes of standing self-censorship can constitute a cognizable First Amendment 

harm. (See Doc. No. 62 at 31-33.) Plaintiffs take this reasoning out of context. The court’s standing 

analysis is a far cry from a finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First 

Amendment claim. As the court indicated, supplemental briefing is required before the court can make 

that determination. 

The requested extension is reasonable under the circumstances. The extension of time is 

necessary to permit defendants to consult with decision makers regarding the issues to be addressed in 

the supplemental briefs. Accordingly, good cause appearing, the request for an extension is GRANTED. 

On or before March 25, 2020, defendants shall file their respective supplemental briefs as 

ordered by the Court. On or before April 24, 2020, plaintiffs shall file their responsive supplemental 

brief as ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01505-JLT-BAM Document 63 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 3