Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02370/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 15:717 Natural Gas 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 1

 115 U.S.C. § 717f(h).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

3.05 acres, more or less, of permanent

easement located in Pinal County; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2370-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case was recently randomly reassigned to the undersigned pending full

consent by all parties in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c). (docket # 57 and # 58)

A review of the file indicates that this condemnation Complaint was filed on

November 29, 2007 wherein Plaintiff seeks to condemn Defendants’ property under the

Natural Gas Act1

 for use in the construction, maintenance, and operation of a natural gas

pipeline pursuant to a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“Certificate”) issued

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) on November 15, 2007. (docket

# 1) On January 4, 2008, a First Amended Complaint was filed apparently without leave of

the Court and/or a stipulation of counsel who had appeared in this action at that time. 

Case 2:07-cv-02370-MEA Document 60 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 5
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 -

The majority of all counsels’ and Judge Sedwick’s focus and efforts to date

have been on Plaintiff’s various motions for preliminary injunctions in the 130 or so cases

in which Plaintiff sought to obtain immediately possession of numerous properties located

in Yavapai, Maricopa and Pinal Counties pending a later determination of just compensation

for the taking of such properties. Plaintiff requested preliminary injunctions “allowing it to

enter the defendant properties being condemned to construct the approximately 260-mile

expansion of its existing interstate natural gas pipeline” in accordance with the Certificate

approved by FERC. After exercising his discretion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) to

consolidate all of the Ryley Carlock and Aronson cases for purposes of deciding immediate

possession only and conducting a two and a half day evidentiary hearing, Judge Sedwick

denied Transwestern’s Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction Permitting Immediate

Entry and Use of the Defendant Properties and Renewed Motion for Immediate Access and

Possession in each of the cases listed in the caption of Judge Sedwick’s April 17, 2008 order.

(docket # 41 at 37 in CV-07-2301; minute order # 57 herein) 

Plaintiff is not likely seeking Ninth Circuit relief from Judge Sedwick’s April

17, 2008 order via interlocutory appeal, especially in light of the parties’ Stipulation and

Joint Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Injunction Permitting Immediate Entry and Use

of Defendants’ Property. (docket # 50) On June 5, 2008, Judge Sedwick issued a minute

order regarding a Rule 16(b) scheduling conference when the parties informally consented

to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. (docket # 51) It appears that a Rule 16(b) scheduling

conference is now in order.

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) designating this a standard track case pursuant to LRCiv 16.2(b)(3);

(2) that a scheduling conference is hereby set pursuant to Rule 16(b),

F.R.Civ.P., before the undersigned on Friday, August 15, 2008, at 4:15 p.m. in the

undersigned’s chambers, Suite 322, Third Floor, Sandra Day O'Connor United States

Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ. Lead counsel for each party shall

Case 2:07-cv-02370-MEA Document 60 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 5
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 -

be physically present and shall have his/her client’s authority to enter into binding

stipulations and make admissions regarding all matters which may be discussed. Rule 16(c),

FED.R.CIV.P.

Parties are directed to meet at least ten (10) days before the conference, in

accordance with Rule 26(f), F.R.Civ.P., to discuss the following matters:

A. Any matters relating to jurisdiction or venue or the joinder of additional

parties;

B. The nature and bases of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for

a prompt settlement or resolution of the case;

C. A schedule of all pretrial proceedings;

D. Modification of pretrial procedures due to the simplicity or complexity of

the case;

E. Any other matters which counsel believe may help dispose of the matter

in an efficient manner.

F. Counsel shall file with the Court by 5:00 p.m. on or before Monday,

August 11, 2008, a proposed Joint Case Management Report, reflecting the results of

counsels’ meeting and outlining their discovery plan. The report shall include individually

numbered brief statements indicating:

1. The nature of the case: the factual and legal basis of plaintiff's claims and

defendants' defenses.

2. The factual and legal issues genuinely in dispute and whether they can be

narrowed by stipulation or motions.

3. The federal jurisdictional basis of the case citing specific statutes.

4. The parties, if any, that have not been served.

5. Whether there are dispositive or partially dispositive issues to be decided

by pretrial motions.

6. The status of related cases pending before other Judges of this District Court

or before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case 2:07-cv-02370-MEA Document 60 Filed 07/28/08 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

7. Suggested changes, if any, in the limitations on discovery imposed by Rule

26(b)(2), F.R.Civ.P., to minimize the expense of discovery.

8. A statement of whether initial disclosures were made or will be made, or

any proposed changes in the requirements for initial disclosures set forth in Rule 26(a),

F.R.Civ.P.

9. Proposed deadlines for:

(a) filing motions to amend pleadings and motions to 

join additional parties;

(b) disclosure of expert testimony under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), F.R.Civ.P.;

(c) completing discovery;

(d) filing dispositive motions; and

(e) filing a pretrial statement

(f) suggested date(s) for the final pretrial conference and trial.

10. Estimated length of trial.

11. Whether a jury trial has been requested.

12. The prospects for settlement. Does any party wish to have a settlement

conference before this or another Magistrate Judge? How can settlement efforts be assisted?

13. Any unusual, difficult, or complex problems affecting the conduct of the

case.

14. Any other matters which counsel believe will aid in expediting the

disposition of this matter more quickly.

After the conference and pursuant to Rule 16(b), FED.R.CIV.P., the Court will

enter orders limiting the time within which counsel may file pretrial motions, complete

discovery, and file dispositive motions. The Court’s order shall control the course of this

action unless modified by subsequent order. Counsel are forewarned that the Rule 16

deadlines it will set at the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference are real and the Court intends

to enforce the deadlines set forth in its scheduling order. Counsel should plan their litigation

activities accordingly. Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006 WL 2573201 *1

Case 2:07-cv-02370-MEA Document 60 Filed 07/28/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

(D. Ariz. 2006); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.1994) (“[F]ederal

Rule of Civil Procedure 16 is to be taken seriously.”).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall keep the Court apprised

of the possibility of settlement and should settlement be reached, the parties shall

immediately file a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court with a copy to this

Court’s chambers. LRCiv 40.2(d). This Court views compliance with the provisions of this

Order as critical to its case management responsibilities and the responsibilities of the parties

under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Rule 16(b) scheduling conference may be vacated upon chamber’s timely

receipt of a Stipulation for Dismissal of this action signed by all counsel of record.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any unrepresented party shall

use the following number and initials on all pleadings and documents filed herein until

further order of the Court: No. CV-07-2370-PHX-LOA.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2007. The District’s Rules of Practice

may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other

rules may be found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/. 

 DATED this 28th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02370-MEA Document 60 Filed 07/28/08 Page 5 of 5