Heartwood, Inc. et al v. Cano et al

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HEARTWOOD, INC. and
WILDERNESS WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FELIPE CANO and
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:25-CV-1850-NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court sua sponte for case management purposes. Plaintiffs
Heartwood, Inc. and Wilderness Watch, Inc. filed their complaint (Doc. 1) on September 30,
2025. Defendants Felipe Cano, Forest Supervisor of the Shawnee National Forest, and United
States Forest Service filed their answer to the complaint (Doc. 14) on December 15, 2025.
Normally, after the first appearance of a defendant, a presumptive trial date is
scheduled along one of the tracks outlined Local Rule 16.1(a). SDIL-LR 16.1(a). However,
because this action is brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 79–
132), “there will never be a trial because the district court’s function is merely to review the
record compiled in an administrative proceeding.” Cronin v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 919 F.2d 439,
443–46 (7th Cir. 1990) (“When persons harmed by administrative action bring a suit for
injunction in a federal court, it is not because they want, or are entitled to, a trial. . . . In such
a suit the district court is a reviewing court . . . it does not take evidence.” (citations omitted));
see also Camps v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973) (explaining that in APA review cases, “the focal
Case 3:25-cv-01850-NJR Document 15 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some
new record made initially in the reviewing court”). As such, the ordinary schedules for
discovery and presumptive trial dates outlined in the Local Rules are not the best fit for these
proceedings.
Because this Court’s ultimate decision will be, outside of “emergenc[ies],” based
solely upon the administrative record instead of any evidence proffered in an evidentiary
hearing, Cronin, 919 F.2d at 444, the Court sets the following schedule:
1. 	On or before January 30, 2026, Defendants shall file the full administrative record and
any appropriate motions to dismiss.
2. 	Within 30 days after the filing of the record, or within 30 days after entry of an order
disposing of the last remaining motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file a merits brief
stating with particularity why the actions of the Defendants were unlawful within the
meaning of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
3. 	Defendants shall then have 30 days to respond to Plaintiffs’ merits brief.
4. 	Plaintiffs may file a reply brief, not to exceed five pages in length, within 14 days after
the filing of Defendants’ response brief.
If any party needs more time for a given filing than is allotted above, they may move for an
extension of the appropriate deadline(s).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	December 16, 2025
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01850-NJR Document 15 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>