09-683 Order After Scheduling Conference

Case 2:09-cv-00683-KSH-PS Document 74 Filed 04/23/2009 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
N.J. SAND HILL BAND, et al., :

:
Plaintiffs : Civil Action No. 09-683 (KSH)
:
v. :
: ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION
DE FACTO STATE, et al., :
:
Defendants :
This matter having come before the Court for a conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
on the record on April 21, 2009;
and the Court having reviewed the proposed and pending motion practice, the request of
the petitioner to file an Amended Petition, the possible need for one of the petitioners to obtain
counsel licensed to practice law before this Court, the status of responsive pleadings, and other
pretrial matters;
and the Court having considered the arguments, representations, and submissions of the
parties;
and for the reasons set forth on the record on April 21, 2009
IT IS ON THIS 21st day of April, 2009
ORDERED that the motions/applications assigned the following docket entry numbers
shall be terminated: Docket Entries Nos. 50, 52, 54, 59, 60, 62, 67 and 70;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Amended Petitions assigned the
following docket entry numbers shall be struck: Docket Entries Nos. 38, 50-4 and 66;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following responses/answers by petitioners are
struck as procedurally improper: Docket Entries Nos. 35, 36, 37, 40 , 41, 42, 51, and 68;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the obligation of defendants Bergen, Monmouth,
Middlesex, Passaic, Cape May, Sussex, and Hunterdon to Answer, move or otherwise respond to
the Petition or Amended Petition is suspended, any all requests for the entry of default are
denied, and all objections to the request to extend the deadlines to Answer, move, or otherwise
respond are denied;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than May 8, 2009, the New Jersey Sandhill
Band of Lenape and Cherokee Indians shall either have counsel enter an appearance on its behalf
or submit a letter setting forth the legal authority permitting it to appear through an individual
who is not licensed to practice law before this Court. If such a letter is submitted, then any
response shall be submitted no later the May 15, 2009;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than May 22, 2009, the petitioners shall file
their Second Amended Complaint that contains all claims and requests for relief. No further
amendments will be permitted, except to permit the petitioners to ask to join additional parties;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the state defendants shall file their motion to dismiss
no later than June 26, 2009. No later than July 2, 2009, the remaining defendants shall submit
letters stating whether or not they are joining the motion. Such letters shall be deemed to
constitute a response to the Second Amended Complaint. Any defendant who does not join the
motion shall file its Answer no later than July 2, 2009. The motion may be based upon Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), but shall not include arguments based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 or
challenges to Mr. Stacey’s lack of standing based upon a claim that he lacks the ancestral lineage
required to show standing as no discovery on this subject has occurred. If the motion is denied,
then leave will be granted to conduct such discovery together with all other discovery and
requests to file motions on this basis may be made when discovery on that topic is completed.;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opposition to the motion to dismiss shall be filed
no later than July 20, 2009 and the reply shall be submitted no later than July 27, 2009. Because
the Court has extended the briefing schedule, the automatic extension provisions of L. Civ. R.
7.1 may not be invoked. Any request to exceed the page limits shall be directed to the United
States District Judge. The return date shall be August 3, 2009 before the Hon. Katharine S.
Hayden. Her Honor’s Chambers will advise the parties if oral argument will be required; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no discovery may take place unless the motion to
dismiss is denied and until the Court enters a scheduling order.
s/Patty Shwartz
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

09-683 Order After Scheduling Conference

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09-683 Order After Scheduling Conference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:09-cv-00683-KSH-PS Document 74 Filed 04/23/2009 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

N.J. SAND HILL BAND, et al., :

on the record on April 21, 2009;

IT IS ON THIS 21st day of April, 2009

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Amended Petitions assigned the

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following responses/answers by petitioners are

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the obligation of defendants Bergen, Monmouth,

respond are denied;

response shall be submitted no later the May 15, 2009;

dismiss is denied and until the Court enters a scheduling order.

You might also like