Backcountry Against Dumps, et al v. Abbott, et al

Filing 7

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 4/8/2010 ORDERING that SDG&E is GRANTED permissive intervention for all claims on the merits and intervention as of right for all claims in any remedial proceedings in this action. (Engbretson, K.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

STEPHAN C. VOLKER (CSB #63093) JOSHUA A.H. HARRIS (CSB #222886) STEPHANIE L. ABRAHAMS (CSB # 257961) LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER 436 14th Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs BACKCOUNTRY AGAINST DUMPS, THE PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION, EAST COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION COALITION, and DONNA TISDALE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BACKCOUNTRY AGAINST DUMPS, THE PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION, EAST COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION COALITION, and DONNA TISDALE, Plaintiffs, v. JIM ABBOTT, in his official capacity as California State Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management, REN LOHOEFENER, in his official capacity as Pacific Southwest Regional Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, KEN SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, BOB ABBEY, in his official capacity as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, MIKE POOL, in his official capacity as the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management, SAM HAMILTON, in his official capacity as the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendants. CASE NO. 2:10-CV-00394-FCD-KJN STIPULATION ALLOWING DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION ON MERITS AND INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT ON REMEDIES AND ORDER THEREON

Pursuant to Local Rule 143 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, the Plaintiffs, the Federal Defendants and Proposed Defendant-Intervenor San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E") hereby stipulate to the following and based thereon, respectfully request this Court's 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

order approving this stipulation: WHEREAS, SDG&E is the proponent of the Sunrise Powerlink Electrical Transmission Line Project ("Sunrise Project"), an approximately 118-mile transmission line running from the Imperial Valley, California to the San Diego, California region approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in December 20081 that would cross a mix of federal, state, and local land, including approximately 50 miles of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM"), whose approvals by the Federal Defendants are challenged in this action; WHEREAS, the BLM approved the Sunrise Project on January 20, 2009 through a Record of Decision, an amendment to the Eastern San Diego County Planning Area Resource Management Plan and issuance of two rights-of-way to SDG&E to construct, maintain, and operate the Sunrise Project on BLM-administered lands; WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") issued a biological opinion for the Sunrise Project in January 2009 as to which SDG&E, as the Applicant, claims a beneficial interest in the biological opinion's incidental take statement; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 16, 2010 commencing this action challenging these BLM and FWS approvals for the Sunrise Project; WHEREAS, SDG&E represents that it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars securing these challenged approvals by the Federal Defendants and taking actions in reliance upon these approvals, which expenditures it plans, as a public utility, to apply to recoup in rates, including a return on its investment; WHEREAS, SDG&E represents that it has claims and defenses directly relating to the merits of this action that share with the main action common questions of law and fact, and therefore the parties agree that SDG&E may intervene permissively, under Rule 24(b), in the merits of this action; WHEREAS, SDG&E represents that (1) it has an interest relating to the properties and
1

The CPUC approval has been challenged in proceedings currently pending in both the California Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeal. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

transactions that are the subject of this action, (2) it is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect its interest, and (3) no existing party adequately represents its interest; and therefore the parties agree that SDG&E may intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a), in any and all remedial proceedings in this action; WHEREAS, SDG&E represents that its intervention is timely as no further proceedings have yet occurred in this action and will not unduly delay or prejudice the original parties' rights; and WHEREAS, based on these representations, the Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants do not oppose the stipulated intervention; THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that SDG&E is granted permissive intervention for all claims on the merits and intervention as of right for all claims in any remedial proceedings in this action.2 IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED. Respectfully submitted this 8th day of April, 2010 For Plaintiffs: /s/ Stephan C. Volker STEPHAN C. VOLKER Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker For Federal Defendants: /s/ Charles R. Shockey CHARLES R. SHOCKEY United States Department of Justice IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2010 For Defendant-Intervenor: /s/ Damon Mamalakis DAMON MAMALAKIS Latham & Watkins LLP

_______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SDG&E will promptly file its Answer with the Court upon approval of this stipulation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, SDG&E's corporate disclosure statement is attached. 3

2