Battle Creek Alliance v. Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.

Filing 17

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 2/7/17: This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorney fees and costs, except as provided for by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 ANDREW L. PACKARD (State Bar No. 168690) WILLIAM N. CARLON (State Bar No. 305739) Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 245 Kentucky Street, Suite B3 Petaluma, CA 94952 Tel: (707) 763-7227 Fax: (707) 763-9227 E-mail: Attorneys for Plaintiff BATTLE CREEK ALLIANCE 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 BATTLE CREEK ALLIANCE, Case No. 2:16-CV-01503-JAM-CMK 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 vs. SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. 14 15 16 STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE [FRCP 41(a)(2)] Plaintiff Battle Creek Alliance (“BCA”) and Defendant in the above-captioned action, stipulate as follows: 17 WHEREAS, on or about April 29, 2016, BCA provided Defendant with a Notice of 18 Violations and Intent to File Suit (“CWA 60-Day Notice Letter”) under Section 505 of the Federal 19 Water Pollution Control Act (“Act” or “Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365; 20 WHEREAS, on July 1, 2016, BCA filed its Complaint against Defendant in this Court and 21 said Complaint incorporated by reference all of the allegations contained in BCA’s CWA 60-Day 22 Notice Letter; 23 WHEREAS, BCA and Defendant, through their authorized representatives and without either 24 adjudication of BCA’s claims or admission by Defendant of any alleged violation or other 25 wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement the allegations of BCA as set forth 26 in BCA’s 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs and uncertainties of 27 further litigation. A copy of the Parties’ proposed settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) 28 entered into by and between BCA and Defendant is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated -1STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL Case No. 2:16-CV-01503-JAM-CMK 1 2 3 4 5 by reference; WHEREAS, BCA has submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“the agencies”) and the 45-day review period set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has now expired; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between the 6 Parties that BCA’s claims, as set forth in its 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, be dismissed with 7 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Parties respectfully request an 8 order from this Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In accordance with Paragraph 13 of the 9 Settlement Agreement, the Parties also request that this Court retain and have jurisdiction over the 10 Parties through January 31, 2019, for the sole purpose of resolving any disputes between the Parties 11 with respect to enforcement of any provision of the Settlement Agreement. 12 Dated: February 7, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 13 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 14 By: /s/ William N. Carlon William N. Carlon Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 17 Dated: February 7, 2017 18 DOWNEY BRAND LLP By: /s/ Nicole Granquist Nicole Granquist Attorneys for Defendant 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL Case No. 2:16-CV-01503-JAM-CMK 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, and the Parties having stipulated and agreed, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Battle Creek Alliance’s claims against Defendant 4 Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc., as set forth in BCA’s 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, are hereby 5 dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorney fees and costs, except as provided for 6 by the terms of the accompanying Settlement Agreement. 7 8 9 10 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties with respect to disputes arising under the Settlement Agreement attached to the Parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss as Exhibit A until January 31, 2019. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/7/2017 12 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3STIPULATION RE DISMISSAL Case No. 2:16-CV-01503-JAM-CMK

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?