Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02315/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02315-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME AND ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE 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

28

29

30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS D. MURPHY

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; 

TOM TIDWELL, in his official capacity as 

Chief of the United States Forest Service; 

and NANCY J. GIBSON, in her official 

capacity as Forest Supervisor of the United 

States Forest Service,

Defendants

CASE NO. 13-cv-02315-GEB-AC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT and TO 

ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE.

The parties seek an order from this Court further extending the time for the United States to 

respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and to amend the briefing schedule previously entered 

by the Court so that the parties may continue to narrow, or possibly resolve, this dispute.

Plaintiff served its Complaint in this matter on November 13, 2013. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(i), Defendants’ responsive pleading was due on January 13, 2014. The parties 

stipulated to an extension of 15 days, up to and including January 28, 2014, for Defendants to respond. 

In submitting the Joint Status Report, Plaintiff indicated that he would amend their Complaint to add 

claims, and filed a Second Amended Complaint with additional claims alleging violations of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on February 6, 2014. 

(Dkt. No. 13) After filing of the Joint Status Report, the parties engaged in settlement talks and 

exchanged drafts of a written term sheet. This Court then granted a further extension up to and 

including April 8, 2014. (See Dkt. No. 21.) On that date, the parties sought, and the Court later 

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 33 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME AND ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE 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

29

30

approved, a further extension to April 25, 2014. (See Dkt. Nos. 22-23.) The Court later approved a 

further extension to May 12, 2014, and then to May 28, 2014. (Dkt. Nos. 25 & 27).

During this time, Plaintiff sent a second ESA “60-day notice letter” to Defendants. Among 

other things, Plaintiff’s notice letter complains that the United States Forest Service did not consult 

with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the alleged effects of the project on the 

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog when the species was listed as endangered. Settlement efforts 

were ultimately unsuccessful, and the parties entered a stipulation regarding a briefing schedule for 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion, which this Court 

approved on May 28, 2014. (Dkt. No. 28). The current schedule is as follows:

•Defendants’ responsive pleading July 21, 2014

•Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction: July 21, 2014

•The parties’ respective oppositions: August 8, 2014

•The parties’ respective replies: August 18, 2014

•Hearing on both motions: August 25, 2014

On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting new claims, including 

claims based on its second ESA 60-day notice letter.

The Forest Service is in the process of making a decision whether to consult with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service regarding the effects of the project on the frog. The Forest Service expects to 

complete this decision-making process by August 1, 2014, and may take a variety of actions 

depending on the decision made. This could include continuing the project as-is, altering the project, 

further study, or other options. Such actions could render unnecessary any preliminary injunction 

motion, lead to complete resolution of the case, or have no effect on the litigation. But, under the 

present schedule, this will not be known until the middle of the briefing schedule.

The parties do not believe that it would be wise to use their resources and the Court’s limited 

resources on a motion to dismiss and a preliminary injunction motion when circumstances are likely 

to change mid-briefing and in light of the fact that the Forest Service has agreed not to take further 

on-the-ground action on the project through at least October 15, 2014. As a consequence, the parties 

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 33 Filed 07/21/14 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME AND ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE 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

28

29

30

agree that it would be judicious to amend the briefing schedule as set forth below. Therefore, the 

parties hereby stipulate to modify the briefing schedule as follows:

•Defendants’ responsive pleading August 11, 2014

•Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction: August 11, 2014

•The parties’ respective oppositions: August 27, 2014

•The parties’ respective replies: September 9, 2014

•Hearing on both motions: September 22, 2014

In addition, the Forest Service will make every effort to provide the complete Administrative Record 

to Plaintiff by August 8, 2014.

This schedule will permit the Forest Service time to complete its decision-making process 

and to initiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, if it decides to do so. Alternatively, if 

no such consultation is initiated, this schedule will permit the parties and the Court to brief the 

motion to dismiss and the preliminary injunction on a reasonable time frame, and to permit time for 

the matter to be decided before operations re-commence no sooner than October 15, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: July 21, 2014

By /s/ Paul S. Weiland 

Attorney for Plaintiff

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Gregory T. Broderick

GREGORY T. BRODERICK

 Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 33 Filed 07/21/14 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME AND ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE 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

29

30

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-02315-TLN-DB Document 33 Filed 07/21/14 Page 4 of 4