Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00541-CCM

Document 168

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
****************************** STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ****************************** ORDER On March 19, 2007, plaintiffs moved, inter alia, for leave to file a reply brief to defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The court on March 22, 2007, ordered defendant to respond to the motion for leave, stating that it would rule without a reply. Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration filed on March 27, 2007, states that plaintiffs' arguments should more properly be addressed in an appeal, as they have been rejected in the trial proceeding and are restated in the motion for reconsideration. Def's Br. filed Mar. 27, 2007, at 23, n.8. Defendant is correct, but more importantly, RCFC 59(b) does not contemplate a reply to a motion for reconsideration. Defendant, however, raised a new argument regarding the "complete defense" of sovereign immunity in Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, No. 01-591, 2007 WL 853018, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 16, 2007). See Def's Br. filed Mar. 27, 2007, at 11n.4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a reply is granted, and plaintiffs shall file a reply brief, not to exceed five pages, by April 6, 2007, directed solely to the rule proposed in Klamath. * * * * * No. 04-541L (Filed Mar. 28, 2007)

s/ Christine O.C. Miller _______________________________________ Christine Odell Cook Miller Judge