Opinion
2:20-cv-1703 DB
11-15-2022
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE, Plaintiff, v. COSUMNES CORPORATION dba MURIETA EQUESTRIAN CENTER, Defendant.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. See U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this matter has been reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes. On November 10, 2022, defendant filed a motion to stay and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on December 16, 2022. (ECF No. 72.) On November 11, 2022, defendant filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear the motion to stay. (ECF No. 73.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 144(e) an application to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances justifying the issuances of an order shortening time. “[Applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order[.]” Local Rule 144(e). 1
Here, the affidavit of defense counsel asserts that the parties' Phase I summary judgment motions concerning standing and Water of the United States (“WOTUS”) issues are presently due on December 16, 2022. (ECF No. 73-1 at 2.) The WOTUS related issue is expected to be impacted by a pending Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, (Supreme Court Case No. 21-454). Counsel argues that “[i]f the Supreme Court's ruling changes the WOTUS law,” that change may necessitate additional briefing, a motion for reconsideration, and/or further oral argument. (ECF No. 73 at 4.)
Assuming, arguendo, that counsel's assertion is true the Supreme Court granted cert in Sackett on January 24, 2022, and heard oral argument on October 3, 2022. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/22grantednotedlist.pdf. Defendant did not file the motion to stay until November 10, 2022. (ECF No. 72.) Given the considerable length of time defendant must have been aware of the issues underlying defendant's argument, the Court finds defendant has failed to show a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of an order shortening time to hear defendant's motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's November 11, 2022 ex parte application (ECF No. 73) is denied. 2