Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00930/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00930-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE COMBINED REPLY BRIEF 

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-DAD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UPPER SOUTH EAST COMMUNITIES 

COALITION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; 

LT. GEN. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, in his 

official capacity, Chief of Engineers and 

Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; COL. MICHAEL J. FARRELL, 

in his official capacity, District 

Commander, Sacramento District, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers; and MICHAEL 

S. JEWELL Chief, Regulatory Division, 

Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

Defendants. 

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

COMMISSION OF WASHOE COUNTY, 

Intervenor Defendant. 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-DAD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE 

COMBINED REPLY BRIEF 

Case 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-EFB Document 44 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 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

28

 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE COMBINED REPLY BRIEF 

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-DAD 

TO ALL PARTIES: 

1. On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff Upper Southeast Communities Coalition (“Plaintiff”) 

filed the instant action, challenging the actions of Defendants U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et 

al. (“Defendants”) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the 

Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (“NEPA”); the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

(“APA”); and the CWA and NEPA implementing regulations; 

2. On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction; 

3. On May 20, 2015, Defendant and Defendant Intervenor each filed a separate, 25-

page brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction; 

4. On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Ex Parte Application to File 

Combined Reply Brief, in which Plaintiff requested permission to file a single, combined reply 

brief of up to 20 pages. Defendants and Defendant Intervenor do not oppose Plaintiff’s 

application; 

5. The Court finding good cause, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Ex Parte Application to File 

Combined Reply Brief is GRANTED. 

 THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: Plaintiff may file a single, 

combined reply brief of up to 20 pages, exclusive of exhibits, attachments, declarations and 

tables, in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This Order does not alter the 

deadlines or hearing date set forth in the Court’s May 15, 2015 Order Shortening Time for 

Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 22, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______ 

 HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ 

Case 2:15-cv-00930-JAM-EFB Document 44 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 2