Center For Community Action and Enviromental Justice v. County of San Bernadino

Filing 23

CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips related to: Stipulation for Settlement 22 . (See document for specifics.) (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) (iva)

1
2
3

JS-6

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY
ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 5:15-CV-00880-VAP-SP
CONSENT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
Defendant.

17
18

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Center for Community Action and Environmental

19

Justice (“CCAEJ”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, public benefit corporation organized

20

under the laws of the State of California, dedicated to working with communities to

21

improve the social and natural environment. Penny Newman is the Executive

22

Director of CCAEJ;

23

WHEREAS, Defendant County of San Bernardino (“County”) owns a

24

landfill facility located at 850 Tropica Rancho Road in Colton, California (the

25

“Facility”). The Facility was operated pursuant to State Water Resources Control

26

Board Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge

27

Elimination System General Permit No. CAS000001, Waste Discharge

28
CONSENT JUDGMENT
C:\Users\jvasquez\Desktop\Consent Judgment (Approved and 
Final).docx 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Los Angeles, California 90071

11
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities
Excluding Construction Activities (hereinafter, the “General Permit”);
WHEREAS, the Facility was permanently closed on December 31, 2014;
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the County submitted to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (“Regional Board”) its Notice of
Termination for the Facility’s coverage under the General Permit as a result of the
permanent closure of the Facility as of December 31, 2014. . The basis for
terminating coverage was that the Facility was categorized as a “Closed Facility”;
WHEREAS, on or about March 5, 2015, CCAEJ provided the Facility with a
Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit (“60-Day Notice Letter” or “Notice
Letter”) under Section 505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the “Act” or
“Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365;
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, CCAEJ filed its Complaint in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Center for Community Action
and Environmental Justice v. County of San Bernardino, Case No. 5:15-cv-00880VAP-SP). Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the
Complaint, including the 60-Day Notice Letter;
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2015, the Regional Board formally approved the
Facility’s notice to terminate coverage under the General Permit;
WHEREAS, the County denies any and all of CCAEJ’s claims in its 60-Day
Notice Letter and Complaint;
WHEREAS, the County filed a Motion to Dismiss all of CCAEJ’s claims on
the basis that the claims allege “wholly past violations” and, therefore, fail to state
any justiciable claims against the County;
WHEREAS, CCAEJ and the County (hereinafter, collectively referred to as
the “Settling Parties”), through their authorized representatives and without either
adjudication of CCAEJ’s claims or admission by the County of any alleged

28
-2C:\Users\jvasquez\Desktop\Consent Judgment (Approved and 
Final).docx 

CONSENT JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4

violation or other wrongdoing, have agreed that it is in the Settling Parties’ mutual
interest to enter into a Consent Judgment setting forth terms and conditions
appropriate to resolving the allegations set forth in the Complaint without further
proceedings;

5
6
7
8
9

Exhibit A, has been submitted to the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
and the national and Region IX offices of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”) for the statutory review period pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §
135.5 at least 45 days prior to the submittal of this Consent Judgment to the Court
for entry; and

Los Angeles, California 90071

11
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

10

WHEREAS, after a Settlement Agreement and Release, attached hereto as

12

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2016, the DOJ communicated to CCAEJ that it
does not have any objection to entry of the Consent Judgment;

13
14
15
16
17
18

NOW, THEREFORE, without trial or adjudication of issues of fact or law,
without this Consent Judgment constituting evidence against the County excepted
as otherwise noted, and upon consent of the County, the Court finds that there is
good and sufficient cause to enter this Consent Judgment, and that it is therefore
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
I.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

JURISDICTION
1.

For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the Settling Parties stipulate

that this Court has jurisdiction over the Settling Parties and the subject matter of
this Consent Judgment. The Settling Parties stipulate that venue is appropriate in
this Court. The Court will maintain jurisdiction through the Termination Date (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement and Release, attached hereto as Exhibit A), or
through the conclusion of any proceeding to enforce the Settlement Agreement and
Release, for purposes of resolving any disputes between the Settling Parties with
respect to any provision on the Settlement Agreement and Release.
II.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

28
-3C:\Users\jvasquez\Desktop\Consent Judgment (Approved and 
Final).docx 

CONSENT JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6

2.

forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release. The Settlement Agreement and
Release, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated herein as the judgment of this
Court and shall be enforced in accordance with the authorities provided in the
Settlement Agreement and Release.
III.

7
8
9

Los Angeles, California 90071

11
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

10

12
13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

NO ADMISSION OR FINDING
3.

Neither this Consent Judgment nor any payment made pursuant to this

Consent Judgment shall constitute evidence or be construed as a finding,
adjudication, or acknowledge of any fact, law or liability, nor shall it be construed
as an admission of violation of any law, rule or regulation. However, this Consent
Judgment and/or any payment made pursuant to this Consent Judgment may
constitute evidence in actions seeking enforcement of this Consent Judgment.
IV.

14
15

The Settling Parties shall comply with the terms and conditions set

ENFORCEMENT
4.

Except as specifically noted herein, any disputes with respect to any of

the provisions of this Consent Judgment shall be resolved through the following
procedure. The Settling Parties agree to first meet and confer to resolve any dispute
arising under this Consent Judgment. In the event that such disputes cannot be
resolved through this meet and confer process, the Settling Parties agree to request
a settlement meeting before the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action. In the
event that the Settling Parties cannot resolve the dispute by the conclusion of the
settlement meeting with the Magistrate Judgment, the Settling Parties agree to
submit the dispute, via motion, to this Court.
V.

OTHER TERMS
5.

The Effective Date of this Consent Judgment shall be upon the entry of

this Consent Judgment by the Court (the “Effective Date”).
6.

Unless an extension is agreed to in writing by the Settling Parties, this

Consent Judgment shall terminate on the date the County satisfies the commitments

28
-4C:\Users\jvasquez\Desktop\Consent Judgment (Approved and 
Final).docx 

CONSENT JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Settlement Agreement and Release, attached hereto as
Exhibit A (the “Termination Date”).
7.

This Consent Judgment, and any provisions herein, may not be

changed, waived, discharged or terminated unless by written instrument, signed by
the Settling Parties.
8.

This Consent Judgment constitutes a full and final settlement of this

matter. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Consent Judgment has been
freely and voluntarily entered into by the Settling Parties with and upon advice
from legal counsel.

Los Angeles, California 90071

11
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

10
SO ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2016

12
13

____________________________________

14

The Honorable Virginia A. Phillips

15

United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5C:\Users\jvasquez\Desktop\Consent Judgment (Approved and 
Final).docx 

CONSENT JUDGMENT

1
2

Dated: February 24, 2016

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

3
4

By: /s/ Chris M. Amantea
Chris M. Amantea
Christopher W. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant County of San
Bernardino

5
6
7
8

Dated: February 24, 2016

Lozeau Drury LLP

9
By: /s/ Douglas J. Chermak
Douglas J. Chermak
Attorneys for Plaintiff Center for
Community Action and Environmental
Justice

Los Angeles, California 90071

11
555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6C:\Users\jvasquez\Desktop\Consent Judgment (Approved and 
Final).docx 

CONSENT JUDGMENT