Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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 

 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK, State Bar No. 119254 

JON D. RUBIN, State Bar No. 196944 

JONATHAN R. MARZ, State Bar No. 221188 

DIEPENBROCK HARRISON, A Professional Corporation 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 492-5000 

Facsimile: (916) 446-4535 

DANIEL J. O’HANLON, State Bar No. 122380 

BECKY DELL SHEEHAN, State Bar No. 201596 

HANSPETER WALTER, State Bar No. 244847 

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD 

400 Capitol Mall, 27th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 321-4500 

Facsimile: (916) 321-4555 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY; 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA 

WATER AUTHORITY; WESTLANDS 

WATER DISTRICT, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GARY F. LOCKE, as Secretary of the 

United States Department of Commerce; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMERCE; NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION; NATIONAL 

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; 

JAMES W. BALSIGER, as Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration; RODNEY R. McINNIS, as 

Administrator, Southwest Region, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic 

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-1053-0WW-DLB 

STIPULATION ANDORDER EXTENDING 

TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND 

TO COMPLAINT

Judge: Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 33 Filed 08/24/09 Page 1 of 5
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE 

and Atmospheric Administration; UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR; UNITED STATES BUREAU 

OF RECLAMATION; MICHAEL L. 

CONNOR, as Commissioner of the United 

States Bureau of Reclamation, United 

States Department of Interior; DONALD 

R. GLASER, as Director of the United 

States Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific 

Region, United States Department of the 

Interior, 

Defendants. 

This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time for Defendants to Respond to 

Complaint (“Stipulation”) is entered into by and between Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota 

Water Authority and Westlands Water District (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Gary F. Locke; United 

States Department of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National 

Marine Fisheries Service; James Balsiger; Rodney R. McInnis; United States Department of 

Interior, United States Bureau of Reclamation; Michael L. Connor; Donald R. Glaser (“Federal 

Defendants”). 

The parties to this Stipulation hereby stipulate, by and through their respective counsel, as 

follows: 

WHEREAS, on or about June 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory relief 

and injunctive relief against Federal Defendants, and 

WHEREAS, the Federal Defendants were served with said complaint on or about June 19, 

2009, and the current deadline to answer this complaint is August 21, 2009, and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint on or after October 5, 2009, 

THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated that: 

In consideration of Plaintiffs’ intent to file an amended complaint, the Federal Defendants’ 

time to answer is extended to ten (10) days after the date of service of Plaintiffs’ amended 

complaint. 

/// 

/// 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 33 Filed 08/24/09 Page 2 of 5
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE 

This Stipulation may be executed by facsimile or electronic signature and in counterparts, 

all of which, taken together, shall constitute a single stipulation. 

Dated: August 20, 2009 DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

 A Professional Corporation 

 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & 

 GIRARD, A Law Corporation 

 By: /s/ [Eileen M. Diepenbrock] 

 EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK 

 DANIEL J. O’HANLON 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

 AUTHORITY; WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 

Dated: August 20, 2009 JOHN C. CRUDEN, Acting Assistant Attorney General 

 JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Section Chief 

 LISA L. RUSSELL, Assistant Section Chief 

 BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL, Trial Attorney 

 

 By: /s/ [Bridget Kennedy McNeil] (as authorized)

 BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL 

 (CO State Bar 034299) 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 Environmental and Natural Resources Division 

 Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 

 1961 Stout St., 8th Floor 

Denver, CO 80294 

Ph: 303-844-1484/Fax: 303-844-1350 

bridget.mcneil@usdoj.gov 

 WILLIAM J. SHAPIRO, Trial Attorney 

 (CO State Bar 030929) 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 Environmental and Natural Resources Division 

 

 Natural Resources Section 

501 I Street, Suite 9-700 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Ph: 916-930-2207/ Fax: 916-930-2010 

william.shapiro@usdoj.gov 

 

 Attorneys for the Federal Defendants 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 33 Filed 08/24/09 Page 3 of 5
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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- 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXTENSION TO FILE RESPONSE 

ORDER 

 Based upon the foregoing Stipulation and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS SO ORDERED that in consideration of Plaintiffs’ intent to file an amended 

complaint, the Federal Defendants’ time to answer is extended to ten (10) days after the date of 

service of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. 

Dated: 8/20/2009 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

 Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

 United States District Court 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 33 Filed 08/24/09 Page 4 of 5
DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

A PROFESSIONAL 

CORPORATION

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- 

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 33 Filed 08/24/09 Page 5 of 5