DocketNumber: No. 17-1189L, No. 17-1191L, No. 17-1194L, No. 17-1195L, No. 17-1206L, No. 17-1215L, No. 17-1216L, No. 17-1232L, No. 17-1235L, No. 17-1277L, No. 17-1303L, No. 17-1300L, No. 17-1332L, No. 17-1390L, No. 17-1374L, No. 17-1391L, No. 17-1393L, No. 17-1394L, No.
Judges: Braden
Filed Date: 10/12/2017
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/7/2024
ORDER
Between October 2, 2017 and October 5, 2017, Plaintiffs in thirteen cases filed Responses to the court’s September 15, 2017 Scheduling Order.
On October 6, 2017, the court convened a status conference in the above-captioned cases at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. During that conference, the court heard opposing views on whether the complaints should be classified as either upstream or downstream from Mr. Edwin Armistead Easterby, counsel-of-record in Jacobson, and Mr. David Harrington, counsel for the Government.
At this juncture, the court would appreciate if the parties would inform the court of their respective positions on whether their complaint should be classified as either “upstream” or “downstream” on or by Friday, October 20, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
. See Y And J Properties, LTD v. United States, No. 17-1189; Banes, et al., v. United States, No. 17-1191; Bouzerand, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1195; Aldred, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1206; Milton, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1235; Micu, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1277; Hollis, Jr., et al. v. United States, No. 17-1300; Mousilli v. United States, No. 17-1332; Jacobson, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1374; De La Garza, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1390; Govia v. United States, No. 17-1423; Hering, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1427; Murray, et al. v. United States, No. 17-1430.