USA v. El Dorado County, et al

Filing 445

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 10/28/14 ORDERING that not later than 11/28/2014, the County is directed to submit an opening brief setting forth its proposed resolution as to reimbursement and specifying its view as to the total amount now owed by the government. The government shall then submit its responsive brief by 1/2/2015. Any reply on behalf of the County must be filed no later than 1/14/2015. Following completion of the briefing above, the Court will determine whether oral argument is indicated and will schedule a hearing as necessary. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD

v.

ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
and CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE,
CALIFORNIA,

16

Defendants.

17

_______________________________

18

AND RELATED ACTIONS.

19
20

Through the present action, the government seeks to recover response costs to

21

remediate pollution discovered at the site of a former landfill dump located on National

22

Forest Service lands near Meyers, California. In August of 2010, the government and

23

Defendant El Dorado County, entered into a Partial Consent Decree designed to

24

consolidate buried waste mass at the landfill.

25

moved to modify that Decree on grounds that the design drawing and specifications

26

created by the United States Forest Service deviated significantly from actual conditions

27

at the site.

28

///
1

On April 27, 2011, however, the County

1

The County’s Motion was granted by Memorandum and Order filed July 8, 2011 (ECF

2

No. 416), and this Court ordered that a separate evidentiary hearing be held to

3

determine the government’s liability for any additional costs paid by the County, but not

4

reflected by the original specifications, to effectuate the remediation design. In their

5

Joint Status Report filed December 20, 2013, the parties requested that the evidentiary

6

hearing be referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for adjudication. The undersigned

7

issued the requested referral by order filed April 3, 2014, but before the hearing was

8

scheduled the parties entered into a Stipulation, filed September 9, 2014, agreeing that

9

the additional response costs incurred by the County and subject to reimbursement by

10

the government totaled $5,703,003.50. Since that computation of the government’s

11

liability for additional costs was the subject of the undersigned’s referral to the Magistrate

12

Judge, the Magistrate Judge’s task in this matter is now complete.

13

The parties’ most recent Joint Status Report, filed September 9, 2014, indicates

14

that while the amount of additional response costs is now undisputed, the baseline by

15

which the government’s net liability to the County is computed remains in dispute. The

16

County maintains that all expenses incurred above and beyond the amount of the

17

construction bids obtained on the basis of the Forest Service’s design drawing and

18

specifications ($3,427,745.00) are recoverable, meaning that the government owes the

19

entire $5,703.003.30 in additional costs. The government, on the other hand, contends

20

that the baseline for its liability should be $5,500,000.00, the estimated cost of

21

constructing the Remedial Design as set forth in the Partial Consent Decree executed by

22

the parties and entered by the Court in August of 2010. ECF No. 389. If that baseline is

23

accepted, the government’s liability would decrease from $5,703,003.30 to

24

$3,427.745.00.

25

Not later than November 28, 2014, the County is directed to submit an opening

26

brief, not to exceed fifteen (15) pages, setting forth its proposed resolution as to

27

reimbursement and specifying its view as to the total amount now owed by the

28

government. The government shall then submit its responsive brief, also not to exceed
2

1

fifteen (15) pages, by January 2, 2015. Any reply on behalf of the County must be filed

2

no later than January 14, 2015 and shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Following

3

completion of the briefing above, the Court will determine whether oral argument is

4

indicated and will schedule a hearing as necessary.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2014

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3