National Ski Areas Association, Inc. v. United States Forest Service et al
| National Ski Areas Association, Inc. |
| United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture and Harris Sherman |
| 1:2012cv00048 |
| January 9, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Jefferson |
| John L. Kane |
| Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 551 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
64
ORDER granting 63 Defendants Unopposed Motion to Stay Briefing of Plaintiffs Application for Attorneys Fees and Costs. The Briefing and any submission of additional materials supporting or contesting NSAAs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs is STAYED until April 30, 2013. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if by April 20, 2013 settlement negotiations have been unsuccessful, the parties will submit to the Court a proposed briefing schedule for resolution of NSAAs Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs, by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/18/2013.(ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER Defendants process used to adopt the 2012 Directive violated the APA, RFA and NFMA; Interim Directive 2709.11-2012-2, issued by the United States Forest Service and effective March 6, 2012 (2012 Directive) is VACATED; Defendants are ENJOINED, nationwide, from enforcing the terms of the 2012 Directive already included in existing Ski Area Permits; Defendants are ENJOINED, nationwide, from enforcing the terms of Interim Directive 2709.11- 2011-3 already included in existing Ski Area Permits; and This matter is REMANDED to the United States Forest Service for further action not inconsistent with this Court Order of even date, by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/19/2012. (ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
55
MINUTE ENTRY for Oral Argument held before Judge William J. Martinez: ORDERED: Defendants' Motion To Strike Exhibits Two and Four from Plaintiff's Opening Brief 29 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is DENIED with respe ct to Exhibit Two to Plaintiff's Opening Brief 19 . The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Exhibit Four. Exhibit Four to Plaintiff's Opening Brief 15 is STRICKEN. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record 40 is GRANTED. ORDERED:On or before Monday, November 26, 2012, the parties shall submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and final judgment.ORDERED: Matter taken under advisement. Court Reporter: Gwen Daniel. (wjmcd, )
|
|
Filing
50
SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/13/2012. (ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER. Because Defendants' Motion to Strike 29 could require weighing the credibility and relevance of evidence, determinations bearing directly on the merits of the arguments presented in Plaintiff's opening brief on the merits, it should be assigned to a district judge pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 40.1A before completion of pre-merits briefing on the AP Docket, by Judge John L. Kane on 7/10/12. (lygsl, )
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER granting 16 Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae. Proposed brief shall be accepted for filing, by Judge John L. Kane on 6/4/12.(gmssl, )
|
|
Filing
12
Joint Case Management Plan for Petition for Review of Agency Action (ORDER) Adm Plaintiffs Brief due by 6/1/2012. Respondents brief due 30 days after filing of opening brief and reply brief due 14 days after filing of response brief, by Judge John L. Kane on 4/5/12. (gmssl, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
