Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC

Opinion

NOTE: This order is n0nprecedential. United States Court of AppeaIs for the F ederal Circuit VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION, » Plar.`ntiff-Cross Appellant, V. ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC., Plain.tiffs-Cross Appellants, ' _ v. ' UNITED STATES, Defen,dant-Appellant. 2011-5033, -5034, -5042 Appea1s from the United States C0urt of Federa1 C1aimS in consolidated case n0s. 02-CV-898 and 03-CV- 2663, Judge Th0mas C. Wheele1'. ON MOTION Bef01'e MO0RE, Circuit Judge.

vERMoNT YAN1<_EE NUoLEAR PowER v. Us 2 0 R D E R Plaintiff-cross appellant Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (“Entergy") moves for leave to file a two-page response to the amended brief of Amicus Curiae State of Vermont. The United States does not oppose Entergy’s motion, and Plaintiff-cross appellant Vermont Yankee Nuclear PoWer Corporation ("VYNPC") takes no position A1nicus Curiae State of Vermont filed a brief on May 19, 2011, on its own behalf and supporting VYNPC. Under the original briefing schedule Entergy was able to respond to both appellants and to any amicus curiae support of those appellants with its initial brief Amicus Curiae State of Vermont filed an amended brief on October 24, 2011, to which Entergy has not had the opportunity to respond. Entergy’s proposed response states that it "agrees with Point I.C. of Verrnont’s amended Amicus Brief, which urges this Court not to decide whether federal law . . . preempts Vermont’s Act 74" and, in essence, merely en- courages the court not to decide the preemption issue. The proposed response brief contains little, if any, substantive argument. Additionally, because the United States has already Eled its reply brief, it would not have the opportunity to respond to Entergy’s proposed response. Upon consideration thereof, IT ls OR1:)ERED THAT: The motion is denied.

3 vERMoNT YANKEs woman PoWER v. us FoR THE CoURT JAN 3 ll 2012 /sf Jan Horbaly Date 3 an Horbaly Clerk ccc Brad Fagg, Esq. Richard J ames Conway, Esq. F"_Ep §§ °1]:l D a_Le§e1"_ ha E§1' u"Sii1cili|ii)i]1iAiPriii'i:i1Sli:0B y e an 1s- anne o, sq. 1 525 .1AN 30 2012 JAN HORBAl.Y CLEHK

Reference

Status
Unpublished