Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 15, 2022

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. United States Environmental Protection…

Full caption

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:21-cv-07360
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. EPA: Judge Gilliam ordered a 60-day pause in briefing on plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs motion.

Who this affects

The order affected Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the other plaintiffs seeking attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Administrator Michael S. Regan, by pausing and rescheduling briefing on the fees-and-costs motion.

What happened

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and other plaintiffs filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees and costs from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, Michael S. Regan.

The parties jointly asked the court to pause briefing for 60 days so they could pursue settlement discussions about the fees-and-costs claim. The federal defendants did not concede that plaintiffs were entitled to fees or costs and did not waive any defense.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the 60-day stay. The defendants’ opposition was moved to September 26, 2022, and the plaintiffs’ reply was moved to October 3, 2022; the parties were to update the court by September 12, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. United States Environmental Protection… · No. 4:21-cv-07360
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
July 15, 2022

Background

Plaintiffs Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and other plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, Michael S. Regan. The opinion does not decide whether plaintiffs are entitled to those fees or costs.

Parties’ stipulation

The plaintiffs and federal defendants jointly requested a 60-day stay of briefing on the fees-and-costs motion to facilitate settlement discussions. They agreed that briefing and argument might be unnecessary if the claim could be settled. The federal defendants expressly did not concede plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees or costs and did not waive any defense.

Order

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court ordered a 60-day stay of briefing on plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The defendants’ opposition deadline was postponed from July 28, 2022, to September 26, 2022, and the plaintiffs’ reply deadline was postponed from August 4, 2022, to October 3, 2022. The parties were required either to propose a briefing schedule or update the court about the motion and any requested action by September 12, 2022. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order on July 15, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.