Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. Community Recycling & Resource Recovery Inc et al

Filing 32

ORDER RE: CONSENT DECREE AND JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson : Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiff Los Angeles Waterkeeper and Defendants Maintenance Services, Inc. (formerly known as Community Recycling and Resource Recovery , Inc.), Crown Disposal Company, Inc., T & R Fry Family Trust, Thomas H. Fry. and Ruth M. Fry. Environmental Project, Reimbursement of Litigation Fees and Costs, and Stipulated Payments: Defendants agrees to make a payment of $200,000.00 to the Liberty Hill Foundation. Reimbursement of Waterkeepers Fees and Costs: Defendants shall pay a total of $228,750.00 to Waterkeeper to partially reimburse Waterkeeper for its investigation fees and costs, expert/consultant fees and costs, and rea sonable attorneys fees incurred. Stipulated Payment. Defendants shall make a remediation payment of $1,000.00 per day that they fail to make a payment by the deadline required by paragraph 11. Defendants shall make a payment of $1,000.00 per day that they fail to make a payment by the deadline required by paragraph 12. Defendants expressly acknowledge that they are jointly and severally liable for the payments identified in paragraphs.(SEE DOCUMENT FOR OTHER SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, INSTRUCTIONS AND DEADLINES ). ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (lc) Modified on 1/11/2016 (lc).

1
2
3
4
5

LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC.
Drevet Hunt (Bar No. 240487)
Email: [e-mail]
1004-A O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, California 94129
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7

Attorney for Plaintiff
LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER

JS-6

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
COMMUNITY RECYCLING &
)
RESOURCE RECOVERY, INC., a
)
California corporation; CROWN
DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC., a California )
corporation; T & R FRY FAMILY TRUST, )
)
a family trust; THOMAS H. FRY,
)
individually and as Trustee of T & R Fry
)
Family Trust; and RUTH M. FRY, as
)
Trustee of T & R Fry Family Trust;
)
)
Defendants.
LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER, a
California non-profit corporation,

Civil Case No. 2:14-CV-7965-DDP-PLA
ORDER RE: CONSENT DECREE
AND JUDGMENT

(Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.)

23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

Case No. 2:14-CV-7965-DDP-PLA

CONSENT DECREE

1
2

The following Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiff Los

3

Angeles Waterkeeper (“Plaintiff” or “Waterkeeper”) and Defendants Maintenance

4

Services, Inc. (formerly known as Community Recycling and Resource Recovery, Inc.),

5

Crown Disposal Company, Inc., T & R Fry Family Trust, Thomas H. Fry, and Ruth M.

6

Fry (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Defendants”). The entities entering into this

7

Consent Decree are each an individual “Settling Party” and collectively the “Settling

8

Parties.”

9

WHEREAS, Waterkeeper is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public benefit corporation

10

organized under the laws of the State of California, with its main office in Santa Monica,

11

California;

12

WHEREAS, Waterkeeper is dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense

13

of the rivers, creeks, and coastal waters of Los Angeles County from all sources of

14

pollution and degradation;

15

WHEREAS, Defendant T & R Fry Family Trust are owners of twelve (12)

16

contiguous parcels with a main address at 9189 De Garmo Avenue, Sun Valley,

17

California 91352, hereinafter referred to by the Settling Parties as the “Crown Facility”;

18

WHEREAS, Defendants Thomas H. Fry and Ruth M. Fry formerly owned some

19

of the parcels immediately referenced above;

20

WHEREAS, Defendant T & R Fry Family Trust and Defendants Thomas H. Fry

21

and Ruth M. Fry, as Trustees of T & R Fry Family Trust, own all of the stock of Crown

22

Disposal Company, Inc., and Maintenance Services, Inc.;

23

WHEREAS, Defendants Crown Disposal Company, Inc., and Maintenance

24

Services, Inc., were the owners and/or operators of a waste hauling, waste transfer, and

25

resource recovery facility located on the Crown Facility from 1968 in the case of Crown

26

Disposal Company, Inc. and 1974 in the case of Maintenance Services, Inc. and, in the

27

case of both entities, until March 4, 2015;

28

WHEREAS, ownership and operation of the waste hauling, waste transfer, and
1
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

1

resource recovery activities at the Crown Facility was transferred from Defendants to

2

Recology Los Angeles on March 5, 2015;

3

WHEREAS, Waterkeeper has approximately 3,000 members who live and/or

4

recreate in and around the Los Angeles River watershed and Los Angeles area

5

waterbodies receiving discharges from the Crown Facility, including the Los Angeles

6

River, Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, San Pedro Bay, Cabrillo

7

Beach, and the Pacific Ocean;

8

WHEREAS, discharges from the Crown Facility are regulated by the National

9

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001

10

[State Water Resources Control Board] Water Quality Order No. 92-12-DWQ, as

11

amended by Order No. 97-03-DWQ (“Storm Water Permit”) and the Federal Water

12

Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”);

13

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2014, Waterkeeper sent Defendants, the United States

14

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), EPA Region IX, the State Water Resources

15

Control Board (“State Board”), and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control

16

Board (“Regional Board”) a notice of intent to file suit (“Notice Letter”) under Sections

17

505(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a) and (b). The Notice Letter

18

alleged violations of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), and

19

violations of the Storm Water Permit at the Crown Facility;

20

WHEREAS, on October 15, 2014, Waterkeeper filed a complaint against

21

Defendants in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Case No.

22

CV14-7965-DDP-PLA), alleging violations of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33

23

U.S.C. § 1311(a), and violations of the Storm Water Permit at the Crown Facility

24

(“Complaint”);

25

WHEREAS, Waterkeeper alleges Defendants to be in violation of the substantive

26

and procedural requirements of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act with

27

respect to the Crown Facility;

28

WHEREAS, Defendants deny all allegations in the Notice Letter and Complaint
2
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

1

relating to the Crown Facility;
WHEREAS, Waterkeeper and Defendants have agreed that it is in the Settling

2
3

Parties’ mutual interest to enter into a Consent Decree setting forth terms and conditions

4

appropriate to resolving the allegations set forth in the Complaint without further

5

proceedings;
WHEREAS, all actions taken by Defendants pursuant to this Consent Decree

6
7

shall be made in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and local rules and

8

regulations.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE

9
10

SETTLING PARTIES AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT AS

11

FOLLOWS:

12

1.

13

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to

Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a);
2.

14

Venue is appropriate in the Central District of California pursuant to Section

15

505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the Crown Facility is

16

located within this District;
3.

17
18

The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

Section 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1);

19

4.

Plaintiff has standing to bring this action;

20

5.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing

21

the terms of this Consent Decree for the life of the Consent Decree, or as long thereafter

22

as is necessary for the Court to resolve any motion to enforce this Consent Decree.

23

I.

24

OBJECTIVES
6.

It is the express purpose of the Settling Parties entering into this Consent

25

Decree to further the objectives set forth in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et

26

seq., and to resolve those issues alleged by Waterkeeper in its Complaint. In light of these

27

objectives and as set forth fully below, Defendants agree to comply with the provisions of

28

this Consent Decree.
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

3

Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA

1
2

II.

AGENCY REVIEW AND TERM OF CONSENT DECREE
7.

Plaintiff shall submit this Consent Decree to the United States Department of

3

Justice and the EPA (collectively “Federal Agencies”) within three (3) days of the final

4

signature of the Settling Parties for agency review consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 135.5. The

5

agency review period expires forty-five (45) days after receipt by both agencies, as

6

evidenced by written acknowledgement of receipt by the agencies or the certified return

7

receipts, copies of which shall be provided to Defendants if requested. In the event that

8

the Federal Agencies object to entry of this Consent Decree, the Settling Parties agree to

9

meet and confer to attempt to resolve the issue(s) raised by the Federal Agencies within a

10

reasonable amount of time. If the parties are unable to reach agreement to modify this

11

Consent Decree so as to resolve the issues raised by the Federal Agencies, and this

12

Consent Decree as so modified is not approved by the Federal Agencies, this Consent

13

Decree shall be of no force and effect. Furthermore, if this Consent Decree is not

14

approved by the Court, this Consent Decree shall be of no further force and effect.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

8.

The term “Effective Date” as used in this Consent Decree shall mean the day

this Consent Decree is signed and entered by a United States District Court Judge.
9.

This Consent Decree shall terminate once all of the following conditions

have been met:
a. Defendants make each of the payments required under the Consent
Decree;
b. Defendants notify Waterkeeper in writing of their intent to file a
motion for termination at least 21 days prior to filing the motion;
c. The Parties conduct a meet and confer (either in person or
telephonically) at least 14 days prior to filing the motion;

25

d. Defendants file a motion for termination with the Court along with a

26

declaration setting forth facts sufficient to demonstrate it has complied

27

with all obligations of this Consent Decree; and

28

e. The Court enters an order terminating the Consent Decree
4
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

1

10.

If there is a dispute regarding Defendants’ compliance with the Consent

2

Decree, Waterkeeper shall file a Notice of Dispute with the Court prior to the termination

3

of this Consent Decree, which shall identify the issue in dispute. The filing of such

4

Notice of Dispute by Waterkeeper shall extend the Termination Date until the Court

5

determines the dispute has been resolved and thereupon dismisses the case or,

6

alternatively, if the Settling Parties file a stipulation for dismissal.

7

III. COMMITMENTS OF THE SETTLING PARTIES

8

A.

9
10

Environmental Project, Reimbursement of Litigation Fees and Costs, and
Stipulated Payments

11.

Environmental Project. To remediate the alleged environmental harms

11

resulting from non-compliance with the Storm Water Permit alleged in the Complaint,

12

Defendants agrees to make a payment of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) to

13

the Liberty Hill Foundation to fund environmental project activities that will reduce or

14

mitigate the impacts of storm water pollution from industrial activities on the Los

15

Angeles River and its tributaries. The payments shall be made within three (3) days of the

16

Effective Date payable to the Liberty Hill Foundation and delivered via wire transfer,

17

personal delivery or overnight delivery to Liberty Hill Foundation, Attn: Michele

18

Prichard, 6420 Wilshire Blvd #700, Los Angeles, CA 90048. Defendants shall provide

19

Waterkeeper with a copy of such payment.

20

12.

Reimbursement of Waterkeeper’s Fees and Costs. Defendants shall pay a

21

total of Two Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand and Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars

22

($228,750) to Waterkeeper to partially reimburse Waterkeeper for its investigation fees

23

and costs, expert/consultant fees and costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a

24

result of investigating and preparing the lawsuit and negotiating this Consent Decree.

25

Payment shall be made within three (3) days of the Effective Date payable to “Los

26

Angeles Waterkeeper” and delivered via wire transfer, personal delivery or overnight

27

delivery to: Los Angeles Waterkeeper, 120 Broadway, Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA

28

90401.
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

5

Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA

1

13.

Stipulated Payment. Defendants shall make a remediation payment of One

2

Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per day that they fail to make a payment by the deadline

3

required by paragraph 11. Payments for such violations shall be made for the restoration

4

and/or improvement of the watershed in the area affected by the Defendants’ alleged

5

discharges and shall be awarded to Liberty Hill Foundation. Defendants agree to make

6

the stipulated payment within forty-five (45) days of the date of the violation. The

7

payments shall be mailed via regular mail to the attention of Liberty Hill Foundation,

8

Attn: Michele Prichard, 6420 Wilshire Blvd #700, Los Angeles, CA 90048. The

9

Defendants shall provide Waterkeeper with a copy of each such payment at the time it is

10
11

made.
14.

Defendants shall make a payment of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per day

12

that they fail to make a payment by the deadline required by paragraph 12. Payments for

13

such violations shall be made to “Los Angeles Waterkeeper” and delivered within forty-

14

five (45) days of the date of the violation via wire transfer to: Los Angeles Waterkeeper,

15

120 Broadway, Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA 90401.

16

15.

Defendants expressly acknowledge that they are jointly and severally liable

17

for the payments identified in paragraphs 11-14.

18

IV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

19

16.

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until termination of this

20

Consent Decree for the purposes of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions

21

of this Consent Decree, and adjudicating all disputes among the Settling Parties that may

22

arise under the provisions of this Consent Decree. The Court shall have the power to

23

enforce this Consent Decree with all available legal and equitable remedies, including

24

contempt.

25

17.

Meet and Confer. A party to this Consent Decree shall invoke the dispute

26

resolution procedures of this Section by notifying all other Settling Parties in writing of

27

the matter(s) in dispute. The Settling Parties shall then meet and confer in good faith

28

(either telephonically or in person) in an attempt to resolve the dispute informally over a
6
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

1

period of fourteen (14) days from the date of the notice. The Settling Parties may elect to

2

extend this time in an effort to resolve the dispute without court intervention.
18.

3

If the Settling Parties cannot resolve a dispute by the end of meet and confer

4

informal negotiations, the party initiating the dispute resolution provision may invoke

5

formal dispute resolution by filing a motion before the United States District Court for

6

the Central District of California. The Settling Parties agree to request an expedited

7

hearing schedule on the motion.
19.

8
9

Enforcement Fees and Costs. Litigation costs and fees incurred in

conducting a meet and confer session(s) or otherwise addressing and/or resolving any

10

dispute, including an alleged breach of this Consent Decree, shall be awarded in

11

accordance with the standard established by Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33

12

U.S.C. §§ 1365 and 1319, and case law interpreting that standard.

13

V.

14

MUTUAL RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE
20.

Waterkeeper’s Release. Upon the Effective Date of this Consent Decree,

15

Waterkeeper, on its own behalf and on behalf of its current and former officers, directors,

16

employees, and each of their successors and assigns, and its agents, attorneys, and other

17

representatives, and on behalf of each of them, releases all persons including, without

18

limitation, Defendants (and each of their direct and indirect parent and subsidiary

19

companies and affiliates, and their respective current and former officers, directors,

20

members, employees, shareholders, and each of their predecessors, successors, and

21

assigns, and each of them, and each of their agents, attorneys, consultants, and other

22

representatives) from and waives all claims alleged in the Notice Letter and/or

23

Complaint, and/or otherwise, up to the Effective Date of this Consent Decree.

24

21.

Defendants’ Release. Upon the Effective Date of this Consent Decree,

25

Defendants, on its own behalf and on behalf of its current and former officers, directors,

26

employees, members, and each of their successors and assigns, and their agents,

27

attorneys, and other representatives, and each of them, releases Waterkeeper (and its

28

current and former officers, directors, employees, members, parents, subsidiaries, and
7
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

1

affiliates, and each of them, and each of their successors and assigns, and its agents,

2

attorneys, and other representatives) from and waives all claims which arise from or

3

pertain to this action, including all claims for fees (including fees of attorneys, experts,

4

and others), costs, expenses, or any other sum incurred or claimed for matters related to

5

Waterkeeper’s Notice Letter and Complaint, and/or otherwise, up to entry of this Consent

6

Decree by the Court.

7
8

22.

Release of Unknown/Unsuspected Claims: Section 1542 of the California

Evidence Code provides:

9

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor
does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time
of executing the release, which if known by him or her must
have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

10
11
12

Each of the parties hereto, on his/her/its own behalf and on behalf of the others bound by

13

the releases referenced above, waives the benefits and protections of Section 1542 and

14

any comparable federal rule and agrees that unknown and unsuspected claims as of the

15

entry of this Consent Decree are also released.

16

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

17

23.

No Admission of Liability. Neither this Consent Decree, the implementation

18

of additional BMPs, nor any payment pursuant to the Consent Decree shall constitute or

19

be construed as a finding, adjudication, admission, or acknowledgment of any fact, law,

20

or liability, nor shall it be construed as an admission of violation of any law, rule, or

21

regulation. Defendants, and each of them, maintain and reserve all defenses they may

22

have to any alleged violations that may be raised in the future.

23

24.

Force Majeure. Force Majeure includes any act of God, war, fire,

24

earthquake, flood, or natural catastrophe; civil disturbance, vandalism, sabotage, or

25

terrorism; restraint by court order or public authority or agency; or action or non-action

26

by, or inability to obtain the necessary authorizations or approvals from, any

27

governmental agency. Force Majeure shall not include normal inclement weather,

28

economic hardship, or inability to pay. Any party seeking to rely upon this paragraph to
8
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

1

excuse or postpone performance shall have the burden of establishing that it could not

2

reasonably avoid the Force Majeure event and which by exercise of due diligence has

3

been unable to overcome the failure of performance. Delay in compliance with a specific

4

obligation under this Consent Decree due to Force Majeure as defined in this paragraph

5

shall not excuse or delay compliance with any or all other obligations required under this

6

Consent Decree.
a.

7

If Defendants claim Force Majeure, they shall notify Waterkeeper in

8

writing within twenty-one (21) days of the date that Defendants first knew of the event or

9

circumstance that caused or would cause a violation of this Consent Decree. The notice

10

shall describe the reason for the nonperformance and the specific obligations under the

11

Consent Decree that are or have been affected by the Force Majeure. It shall describe the

12

anticipated length of time the delay may persist, the cause or causes of the delay, the

13

measures taken or to be taken by Defendants to prevent or minimize the delay, the

14

schedule by which the measures shall be implemented, and the anticipated date of

15

compliance. Defendants shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize such

16

delays.
b.

17

The Settling Parties shall meet and confer in good faith concerning the

18

non-performance and, where the Settling Parties concur that performance was or is

19

impossible due to Force Majeure, despite the timely good faith efforts of Defendants,

20

new deadlines shall be established.
c.

21

If Waterkeeper disagrees with Defendants’ notice of Force Majeure,

22

or in the event that the Settling Parties cannot timely agree on the terms of new

23

performance deadlines or requirements, either party shall have the right to invoke the

24

Dispute Resolution Procedure pursuant to Section IV. In such proceeding, Defendants

25

shall bear the burden of proving that any delay in performance of any requirement of this

26

Consent Decree was caused or will be caused by Force Majeure and the extent of any

27

delay attributable to such circumstances.

28

25.

Construction. The language in all parts of this Consent Decree shall be
9
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

1

construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, except as to those terms defined in

2

the Storm Water Permit, the Clean Water Act, or specifically herein.

3
4
5

26.

Choice of Law. The laws of the United States shall govern this Consent

Decree.
27.

Severability. In the event that any provision, paragraph, section, or sentence

6

of this Consent Decree is held by a court to be unenforceable, the validity of the

7

enforceable provisions shall not be adversely affected.

8
9
10

28.

Correspondence. Unless specifically provided for in this Consent Decree, all

notices required herein or any other correspondence pertaining to this Consent Decree
shall be sent by U.S. mail or electronic mail as follows:

11

If to Plaintiff:

12

Bruce Reznik, Executive Director
[e-mail]
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
120 Broadway, Suite 105
Santa Monica, California 90401

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

With copies to:
Drevet Hunt, Esq.
[e-mail]
LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC.
1004-A O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, California 94129

20
21

If to Defendants:

22

Mr. John Richardson
[e-mail]
c/o Freedom Farms, LLC
P.O. Box 1063
Sun Valley, CA 91352

23
24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

10

Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA

1
2
3
4

With copies to:
Stephen T. Holzer, Esq.
[e-mail]
Lewitt Hackman Shapiro Marshall & Harlan
16633 Ventura Boulevard, 11th floor
Encino, California 91436

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Notifications of communications shall be deemed submitted three (3) business days
after having been set via U.S. mail or the day of sending notification or communication
by electronic mail. Any change of address or addresses shall be communicated in the
manner described above for giving notices.
29.

Effect of Consent Decree. Except as provided herein, Waterkeeper does not,

by its consent to this Consent Decree, warrant or aver in any manner that Defendants’
compliance with this Consent Decree will constitute or result in compliance with any
federal or state law or regulation. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to
affect or limit in any way the obligation of Defendants to comply with all federal, state,
and local laws and regulations governing any activity required by this Consent Decree.
30.

Counterparts. This Consent Decree may be executed in any number of

counterparts, all of which together shall constitute one original document. Telecopy,
email of a .pdf signature, and/or facsimile copies of original signature shall be deemed to
be originally executed counterparts of this Consent Decree.
31.

Modification of the Consent Decree. This Consent Decree, and any

provisions herein, may not be changed, waived, discharged, or terminated unless by a
written instrument, signed by the Settling Parties. If any Settling Party wishes to modify
any provision of this Consent Decree, the Settling Party must notify the other Settling
Party in writing at least twenty-one (21) days prior to taking any step to implement the
proposed change.
32.

Full Settlement. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final settlement

of this matter.
33.

Integration Clause. This is an integrated Consent Decree. This Consent

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

11

Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA

1

Decree is intended to be a full and complete statement of the terms of the agreement

2

between the Settling Parties and expressly supersedes any and all prior oral or written

3

agreements, covenants, representations, and warranties (express or implied) concerning

4

the subject matter of this Consent Decree.

5

34.

Authority. The undersigned representatives for Plaintiff and Defendants each

6

certify that he/she is fully authorized by the party whom he/she represents to enter into

7

the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree.

8
9
10
11

35.

The Settling Parties certify that their undersigned representatives are fully

authorized to enter into this Consent Decree, to execute it on behalf of the Settling
Parties, and legally to bind the Settling Parties to its terms.
36.

The Settling Parties, including any successors or assigns, agree to be bound

12

by this Consent Decree and not to contest its validity in any subsequent proceeding to

13

implement or enforce its terms.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Date: January 11, 2016

17

Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
United States District Judge
Central District of California

18
19
20

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Consent Decree as of

21

the date first set forth below.

22
23

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT

24
25

Dated:

By:
Bruce Reznik
Los Angeles Waterkeeper

26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

12

Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA

1
2

Dated:

By:
Crown Disposal Company, Inc.

Dated:

By:
Maintenance Services, Inc.

Dated:

By:
Thomas H. Fry for the T & R Fry
Family Trust

Dated:

By:
Ruth M. Fry for the T & R Fry
Family Trust

Dated:___________________

_________________________
Thomas H. Fry

Dated:

_________________________
Ruth M. Fry

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

APPROVED AS TO FORM

Dated:

By:
Drevet Hunt
Lawyers for Clean Water, Inc.

Dated:

By:
Stephen Holzer
Lewitt Hackman Shapiro Marshall &
Harlan
Civil Case No. 14-7965-DDP-PLA

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONSENT
DECREE AND JUDGMENT

13