Opinion
Civil Action No.: 1:12-cv-3272-AP
06-10-2013
Eppie Espinoza, Petitioner, v. Department of Justice, Respondent.
For Plaintiff: Randall M. Weiner, Law Offices of Randall M. Weiner, P.C. For Defendant: Joseph Mead, Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice, Civil Division
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PETITIONS
FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION
1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
For Plaintiff:
Randall M. Weiner,
Law Offices of Randall M. Weiner, P.C.
For Defendant:
Joseph Mead, Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice,
Civil Division
2. STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction based on the presentation of federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Jurisdiction is also authorized pursuant to Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), Pub. L. No. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920 (1990), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2210, note. Defendant intends to argue that the specific relief sought by Plaintiff's complaint exceeds the scope of relief available under RECA and is barred by the United States' sovereign immunity.
3. DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS
A. Date Petition for Review Was Filed: December 12, 2012.
B. Date Petition for Review Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: January 8, 2013.
C. Date Answer or Other Response Was Filed: March 14, 2013.
4. STATEMENT(S) REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR DEFENSES
None.
5. OTHER MATTERS
None.
6. PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
A. Deadline for Filing Administrative Record:
April 12, 2013.
B. Deadline for Parties to Confer on Record Disputes:
May 13, 2013.
C. Deadline for Filing Motions to Complete and/or Supplement the Administrative Record:
June 12, 2013.
D. Petitioner's Opening Brief Due:
July 12, 2013.
E. Respondent's Response Brief Due:
August 12, 2013.
F. Petitioner's Reply Brief (If Any) Due:
August 27, 2013.
7. STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Plaintiff requests that the Court add this case to the argument calendar for oral argument. This case meets the standards for oral argument, in that the dispositive issues raised in this appeal have not been recently and authoritatively decided, and the decisional process would be significantly aided by oral argument. The case raises equitable questions about the access of impoverished persons to funds that were specifically earmarked to benefit them. It also raises complex issues of statutory construction that would be usefully explored during an oral hearing.8. CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE Upon consent of the parties and an order of reference from the district judge, the magistrate judge assigned the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) and (b) will conduct all proceedings in the case.]
Defendant does not request an oral argument.
Indicate below the parties' consent choice.
A. () All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.
B. (X) All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.
9. OTHER MATTERS
None.
10. AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.
BY THE COURT
John L. Kane
U.S. District Court Judge
APPROVED: _________________
Randall M. Weiner
Law Offices of Randall M. Weiner, P.C.
3100 Arapahoe Ave
Ste. 460
Boulder, CO 80303
Randall@randallweiner. com
303-440-3321
Attorneys for Petitioner
*Physical Signature on File at Law
Offices of Randall M. Weiner, P.C.
STUART F. DELERY
Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOHN F. WALSH
United States Attorney
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director
_________________
JOSEPH MEAD
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 305-8546 / Fax: (202) 616-8460
E-mail: Joseph.W.Mead@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Respondent