Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01612/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01612-12/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND ORDER

FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - 1

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

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

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO EXCEED 

PAGE LIMIT

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. 

2

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 73 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER

FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - 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

All parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court permit Defendants Mammoth Pacific, 

L.P., Ormat Nevada, Inc., and Ormat Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Ormat”) to exceed the page 

limitation set by the Court in its Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt No. 31) with respect to Ormat’s 

upcoming dispositive motion. 

Good cause exists for Omat’s request under previous orders of the Court. Under the Court’s 

Pretrial Order, “all issues the parties wish to resolve on summary judgment must be raised together 

in one (1) motion . . . .”1 Based on the number of issues that Ormat expects to present in its 

dispositive motion, Ormat anticipates that it will require more than the 20 pages allowed by the 

Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order to present those issues.2

In addition, permitting Ormat to exceed the page limitation will enable Ormat to comply with 

the Court’s October 14, 2015 Memorandum and Order (Dkt No. 50). On August 20, 2015, Ormat 

filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment Based on 

Plaintiffs’ Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Dkt No. 34) (the “Motion to Dismiss”), 

which sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s remaining cause of action. While the Court denied the Motion 

to Dismiss, it also directed Ormat to submit briefing on three specific issues should it elect to renew 

the exhaustion argument in a subsequent motion for summary judgment.3In the event Ormat elects 

to renew its administrative exhaustion argument as a dispositive motion, this would impose on any 

motion for summary judgment additional content requirements that are unaccounted for in the 

requirements of the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

 

1

Pretrial Scheduling Order at 4:13–14.

2

In its Pretrial Scheduling Order, the Court placed a 20 page limit “on all initial moving papers.” Id. at 5:3–5.

3

See Memorandum and Order 7:11–17 (directing Ormat to brief the Court on “(1) the specific legal and factual 

questions the Court must decide in order to impose an exhaustion requirement; (2) whether the Court should exercise its 

discretion and impose an exhaustion requirement; and (3) if it does exercise such discretion, whether the case should be 

dismissed or allowed to proceed”) (emphasis in original). The Court additionally required Ormat to address in any 

subsequent motion for summary judgment the lack of 9th Circuit precedent for exercising judicial “discretion to impose 

an administrative exhaustion requirement prior to filing a citizen suit under section 304 of the Clean Air Act.” Id. at 

7:16–19.

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 73 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND ORDER

FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT - 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

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and request for Ormat to file a Motion for Summary 

Judgment of 30 pages.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated this 7th day of June, 2016. Respectfully submitted,

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 LLP

s/ Douglas J. Chermak

DOUGLAS J. CHERMAK

RICHARD L. DRURY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation and good cause appearing, Defendants may file a 

motion for summary judgment not to exceed thirty (30) pages in length. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN Document 73 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 3