Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06663-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Continuing Mandatory Sch. Conf. No. CIV F-04-6663 REC LJO

1.

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

MARY E. HACKENBRACHT 

Senior Assistant Attorney General 

ELLEN M. PETER

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

CARYN L. CRAIG

NICHOLAS STERN

Deputy Attorneys General

1300 "I" Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

MARC N. MELNICK, State Bar No. 168187

Deputy Attorney General

1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor

P.O. Box 70550

Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Telephone: (510) 622-2133

Fax: (510) 622-2270

Attorneys for Defendant Catherine E. Witherspoon

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

CENTRAL VALLEY CHRYSLER-JEEP,

INC.; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CATHERINE E. WITHERSPOON,

Defendant.

NO. CIV F-04-6663 REC LJO

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING MANDATORY

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill

WHEREAS, a mandatory scheduling conference is currently scheduled for May

12, 2005, at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 6.

WHEREAS, on March 7, 2005, the parties filed a joint stipulation setting the

schedule for briefing and hearing of defendant Catherine E. Witherspoon’s motion to dismiss and

the three pending motions to intervene, and on March 11, 2005 the Court approved that

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Continuing Mandatory Sch. Conf. No. CIV F-04-6663 REC LJO

2.

stipulation.

WHEREAS, in the parties’ March 7, 2005 stipulation, the parties agreed that the

currently scheduled mandatory scheduling conference be continued “to at least July 5, 2005.” 

WHEREAS, defendant Witherspoon’s motion to dismiss raises issues of venue,

ripeness, and primary jurisdiction, and requests either that this action be dismissed in its entirety

or that the action be transferred, the action be stayed, and the second claim be dismissed.

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the mandatory scheduling conference and the

attendant obligations to meet and confer and produce initial disclosures will be facilitated by the

briefing and hearing of defendant Witherspoon’s motion to dismiss, and that the current schedule

for the conference and disclosures would not be the best use of the Court’s time and resources or

the parties’.

WHEREAS, plaintiffs Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc., et al., request that the

Court set the scheduling conference on July 5, 2005, or soon thereafter, so that this case can be

placed on a schedule that facilitates a summary judgment hearing in September or October. 

Plaintiffs believe the First Amended Complaint alleges, at ¶¶ 97-107, immediate hardship from

manufacturing burdens and prospective vehicle restrictions caused by Defendant’s greenhouse

gas standards. Plaintiffs believe that the immediate hardship to manufacturers, and in particular

the immediate hardship to dealers operating within the Fresno Division, supports immediate

adjudication in this Court. Plaintiffs further contend that the nominal “effective date” for the

regulation at issue is both legally and factually irrelevant, given the present harm alleged in the

First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs agreed to delay the scheduling conference until

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is heard on June 13, but Plaintiffs wish to proceed expeditiously

toward summary judgment as soon as practicable. Plaintiffs interpret Defendant’s

representations to the Court as permitting adjudication of this case by “September of this year, at

the latest.” Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, at 33-34 & n.22. Plaintiffs seek to have this case

ready for a summary judgment hearing by the end of September, or shortly thereafter.

WHEREAS, defendant Witherspoon requests that the Court set the scheduling

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 4
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

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Continuing Mandatory Sch. Conf. No. CIV F-04-6663 REC LJO

3.

conference on July 25, 2005 or later, because otherwise the parties may have to prematurely meet

and confer, which would prove to be unproductive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)

requires that the parties meet and confer 21 days prior to the scheduling conference, and Rule

26(a)(1) provides that initial disclosures occur within 14 days after that. Defendant Witherspoon

believes that, before a ruling is made on her motion to dismiss, the parties will have widely

disparate positions on whether, or when, it is appropriate to have initial disclosures, discovery,

and motion practice in this case. Rather than rushing to meet and confer immediately after the

hearing on the motion to dismiss – a scheduling conference held on July 5, 2005 would require

the parties to meet and confer by June 14, 2005 (just one day after the hearing before Judge

Coyle on defendant Witherspoon’s motion to dismiss) – defendant Witherspoon believes it is

advisable to allow at least two or three weeks to elapse after the Court’s hearing. Defendant

Witherspoon believes this will allow the parties to wait at least some time for the Court to rule on

the motion to dismiss, and to allow counsel and the parties to analyze and discuss the ruling. In

addition, defendant Witherspoon believes that before a ruling is made on her motion to dismiss it

is not appropriate to require the parties to begin preparing briefs and evidence for any appropriate

future motions in this case (or pragmatic to discuss a schedule for doing so), especially since the

challenged proposed greenhouse gas emission regulatory amendments, by their own terms, do

not become effective until at least January 1, 2006. Defendant Witherspoon suggests the

scheduling conference be held on July 25, 2005, or later. 

THEREFORE, plaintiffs Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc., et al., and defendant

Witherspoon hereby stipulate that the mandatory scheduling conference be continued to at least

July 5, 2005, to a date the Court determines is appropriate.

Dated: 4/19/05

/s/ Eric B. Wolff (as authorized on 4/19/05) 

ERIC B. WOLFF

Kirkland & Ellis

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 04/21/05 Page 3 of 4
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

Stip. & [Prop.] Order Continuing Mandatory Sch. Conf. No. CIV F-04-6663 REC LJO

4.

Dated: 4/19/05

/s/ Marc N. Melnick 

MARC N. MELNICK

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendant

The mandatory scheduling conference is continued from May 12, 2005, at 8:45

a.m., to July 13, 2005 at 8:30am. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06663-AWI-GSA Document 37 Filed 04/21/05 Page 4 of 4