Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01703-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER 

ALLIANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSUMNES CORPORATION dba 

MURIETA EQUESTRIAN CENTER,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-1703 DB

ORDER

Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has consented to proceed before a United 

States Magistrate Judge. See U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this matter has been reassigned to 

the undersigned for all purposes. On September 5, 2023, the court issued an order stating, in 

relevant part, that “[p]hase II motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before May 17, 

2024,” and that “[o]ppositions to phase II motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or 

before June 14, 2024.” (ECF No. 101 at 6.) 

On December 1, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the September 5, 2023 

order and noticed the motion for hearing on January 5, 2024.

1

 (ECF No. 109.) Therein, plaintiff 

1 The court finds plaintiff’s motion suitable for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the January 5, 2024 hearing will be vacated. 

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 112 Filed 12/29/23 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

2

seeks “clarification that, if it files its Phase II MSJ months before the Scheduling Order deadline,” 

defendant “will not have until” the deadline of June 14, 2024, to file an opposition. (Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff notes that it “wishes to promptly submit its Phase II MSJ” after learning “of the 

impending retirement” of the undersigned. (Id.) 

Defendant filed an opposition on December 15, 2023. (ECF No. 110.) Defendant argues 

that plaintiff fails to show “that an ambiguity exists in the Phase II Scheduling Order,” and that 

defendant “would suffer extreme prejudice in the event that it was not afforded adequate time 

complete Phase II fact and expert discovery[.]” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff filed a reply on December 19, 

2023. (ECF No. 111.) 

Although the court did not think there was an ambiguity in the Phase II Scheduling Order 

the parties’ conflicting interpretations, and how those interpretations conflict with the court’s,

supports clarification of the order. As recounted above the September 5, 2023 scheduling order 

set deadlines for the filing of a motion for summary judgment and opposition. Those deadlines 

provided that those documents be filed “on or before” the given deadlines. In using that phrasing 

the court had no intention of preventing a party from filing a motion for summary judgment prior 

to the deadline. 

Moreover, Local Rule 230 requires any opposition to a noticed motion to “be filed and

served no later than fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed.” Local Rule 230(c). In 

entering the September 5, 2023 order, the court did not circumvent the requirements of Local 

Rule 230. Instead, the court entered a scheduling order pursuant to briefing from the parties. The 

court assumed the parties would want to move for summary judgment near the deadline and 

prospectively granted a slightly longer time to file an opposition.2 Nonetheless, the parties

always have the ability to move for summary judgment at an earlier time. 

In an abundance of caution, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion and clarify that the 

parties are not prohibited from moving for summary judgment at any time prior to the deadline, 

and that Local Rule 230 governs the deadlines for briefing such a motion. 

2

In the event one party files a motion for summary judgment and the other party wishes a short 

extension of the deadline to file an opposition the court would be receptive to that request. 

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 112 Filed 12/29/23 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 1, 2023 motion to leave to amend (ECF No. 109) is granted;

2. The January 5, 2024 hearing of plaintiff’s motion is vacated; and 

3. The undersigned clarifies that a party may move for summary judgment prior to the 

May 17, 2024 deadline, with any opposition due in compliance with Local Rule 230.

Dated: December 29, 2023

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.consent/coastkeeper1703.sched.am.ord

Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 112 Filed 12/29/23 Page 3 of 3