California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Cameron et al

Filing 27

Stipulation 26 signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/20/12 ORDERING Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance shall be permitted to file its proposed Second Amended Complaint on September 19, 2012, or as soon there after as may be convenient for Plaintiff. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant USA Waste of California, Inc. and Defendant Steve Cameron shall file any responsive pleading(s) not later than 21 days after Plaintiff files its Second Amended Complaint.(Matson, R)

ANDREW L. PACKARD (State Bar No. 168690)
ERIK M. ROPER (State Bar No. 259756)
EMILY J. BRAND (State Bar No. 267564)
Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard
100 Petaluma Blvd. N., Suite 301
Petaluma, CA 94952
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ROBERT J. TUERCK (State Bar No. 255741)
Jackson & Tuerck
P.O. Box 148
429 W. Main Street, Suite C
Quincy, California 95971
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non-profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 2:11-CV-02663-WBS-KJN
STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. a
Delaware corporation, and, STEVE
CAMERON, an individual,

Defendants.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“Plaintiff” or
“CSPA”) filed its initial Complaint in this action on October 8, 2011;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint in this action on October
24, 2011;
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2012, Plaintiff served Defendant USA Waste of
California, Inc. and Defendant Steve Cameron (“Defendants”) a supplemental notice of

violations and intent to file suit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean
Water Act”) setting forth the facts underlying its intention to seek to file a Second
Amended Complaint (“Supplemental NOV”);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants shall collectively be referred to as
“Parties”;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Supplemental NOV communicated to Defendants its
intention to file a Second Amended Complaint either by stipulation of the Parties or by
filing a motion with the Court seeking leave to file its Second Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2012, Defendants sent to Plaintiff’s counsel a
written response regarding the Supplemental NOV denying the allegations therein and
advising of the impropriety of filing an amended complaint based on such allegations;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint adds two new
causes of action alleging Defendants are in violation of the Clean Water Act for their
discharge of pollutant-contaminated storm water from an alleged portion of the Facility at
issue in this action to the extent that alleged portion of the Facility is not included in the
permit coverage currently held by Defendants;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has provided Defendants its proposed Second Amended
Complaint (attached hereto as Exhibit A) which adds two new causes of action alleging
that Defendants are in violation of the Clean Water Act for their discharge of pollutants
from the Facility without obtaining coverage under California’s General Industrial Storm
Water Permit (“General Permit”) for the entire Facility;
WHEREAS, Defendants deny the allegations in the proposed Second Amended
Complaint;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Supplemental NOV is attached as Exhibit C to the
proposed Second Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2012, the Court issued a Status (Pretrial Scheduling)
Order providing, in relevant part, that “[n]o further…amendments to pleadings will be

permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 16(b).”
//
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2012, Plaintiff conducted a duly noticed inspection of
Defendants’ Facility pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
during that inspection obtained facts, which were unknown to Plaintiff prior to that
inspection, that provide the factual support for the two new causes of action it seeks to
add by filing the proposed Second Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff submits that good cause exists supporting its request for
leave to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint because the facts supporting the
two new causes of action set forth therein were not known to Plaintiff prior to the Court’s
issuance of its Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order on January 31, 2012;
WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge it is in their mutual interest to avoid
incurring the fees and costs that would necessarily accrue in the event that Plaintiff
moves the Court for leave to file its Second Amended Complaint.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among Plaintiff and
Defendants, in the interest of judicial economy:
A. That Plaintiff shall be permitted to file its proposed Second Amended
Complaint on September 19, 2012, or as soon thereafter as may be convenient for
Plaintiff; and,
B. That Defendants’ response to the Second Amended Complaint shall be filed
not later than twenty-one (21) days after Plaintiff files its Second Amended Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 19, 2012

LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD

By: /s/ Erik
Roper______________________________

Erik M. Roper
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION
ALLIANCE

Dated: September 19, 2012

REED SMITH LLP
_/s/ John Lynn Smith
__
By: John Lynn Smith
(As authorized on September 19, 2012 – L.R. 131)
Attorneys for Defendants
USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al.

ORDER
Pursuant to Stipulation, and good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance shall be permitted to file its proposed Second
Amended Complaint on September 19, 2012, or as soon thereafter as may be convenient
for Plaintiff. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant USA Waste of California, Inc. and
Defendant Steve Cameron shall file any responsive pleading(s) not later than twenty-one
(21) days after Plaintiff files its Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dated: September 20, 2012