Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06065/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06065-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 40:258(a) Public Buildings &amp; Property: Land Condemnation

---

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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

E. ROBERT WRIGHT

BRIAN W. ENOS

United States Courthouse

2500 Tulare St., Ste. 4401

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 497-4058

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

43.77 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR )

LESS IN THE COUNTY OF FRESNO; )

DONALD DEVINE; et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:03-cv-6065 AWI LJO

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING

LITIGATION SCHEDULE

The present action is a condemnation action relating to the

value of easement interests taken from property underlying a

powerline recently constructed by the Department of Energy’s

Western Area Power Administration and commonly known as Path 15. 

The parties to this action include the United States, as well as

those landowners who dispute the issue of just compensation due

to them pursuant to the taking (“the parties”). As specifically

set forth below, the parties stipulate to the following modified

litigation schedule, and respectfully ask the court to endorse

this stipulation by way of written order. Significantly, the

Case 1:03-cv-06065-AWI -LJO Document 69 Filed 09/15/06 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

These motions include the United States’ motion for a jury site visit, 1

filed on or about March 13, 2006.

2

parties do not request to modify this action’s present trial date

of January 16, 2006.

The parties base their stipulation on good cause. 

Specifically, expert depositions were recently concluded, and the

parties await receipt of all deposition transcripts and the

witnesses’ corrections to the same. The transcripts need to be

analyzed prior to the parties determining the scope of

appropriate pretrial motions. In addition, the settlement

conference needs to be moved to a date after the Court has heard

and ruled on pretrial motions so its effectiveness is maximized. 

Further, the undersigned counsel for the United States expects to

be in trial in October, and during the present briefing schedule.

Old Date New Date

Pretrial Motions September 22, October 13, 

Filing Deadline 2006 2006

Pretrial Motions October 23, 2006 November 13,

Hearing Date 20061

Settlement Conference October 11, 2006 November 29,

(LJO) 2006 (LJO)

Pretrial Conference: November 8, 2006 November 29,

2006 (AWI)

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 13, 2006. September 13, 2006

DAMRELL, NELSON, SCHRIMP, McGREGOR W. SCOTT

PALLIOS, PACHER & SILVA United States Attorney

(As auth. 9/13/06)

/s/ Matthew O. Pacher /s/ Brian W. Enos 

MATTHEW O. PACHER BRIAN W. ENOS

Attorneys for Attorneys for

Landowner Defendants United States of America

Case 1:03-cv-06065-AWI -LJO Document 69 Filed 09/15/06 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06065-AWI -LJO Document 69 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 3