Nevada Irrigation District v. Sobeck, et al.

Filing 86

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 7/2/2024 DISMISSING this case without prejudice. Each party is to bear its own cost and fees. CASE CLOSED. (Mendez Licea, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California ERIC M. KATZ Supervising Deputy Attorney General JENNIFER KALNINS TEMPLE, State Bar No. 258637 KRISTIN K. MCCARTHY, State Bar No. 328196 Deputy Attorneys General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 269-6273 Fax: (916) 731-2128 E-mail: Kristin.McCarthy@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendant Eric Oppenheimer 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 14 v. 15 16 17 18 2:21-cv-00851-DJC-CKD Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS Judge: ERIC OPPENHEIMER, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the California State Water Resources Control Board, Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta Action Filed: 12/04/2020 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 WHEREAS on December 4, 2020, Plaintiff Nevada Irrigation District (NID) filed its Complaint; WHEREAS on September 22, 2021, Defendants Eileen Sobeck, et al., filed a Motion to 24 Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion to Stay Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that this Court 25 lacks jurisdiction to hear NID’s claims because NID’s claims are not ripe, because NID lacks 26 Article III standing, and because the Eleventh Amendment immunizes Defendants from suit in 27 federal court (ECF No. 37); 28 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS (2:21-cv-00851-DJC-CKD) 1 WHEREAS on December 6, 2023, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in 2 part (ECF No. 72), granting NID leave to amend within 30 days of the issuance of that Order; 3 WHEREAS NID filed a First Amended Complaint on January 5, 2024, which, among 4 other things, substituted the State Water Resources Control Board’s new Executive Director Eric 5 Oppenheimer for the now-retired former Executive Director Eileen Sobeck; 6 WHEREAS, pursuant to rule 144 of the Local Rules, the Court approved the parties’ first 7 stipulation extending the deadline for Defendant’s responsive pleading to February 2, 2024; 8 WHEREAS, pursuant to rule 144 of the Local Rules, the court approved the parties’ 9 10 11 second stipulation extending the deadline for Defendant’s responsive pleading to June 2, 2024 (ECF No. 81); WHEREAS on May 7, 2024, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water 12 Board) set aside the water quality certification at issue in this lawsuit and dismissed NID’s 13 September 10, 2020 petition for administrative reconsideration of the certification by adopting 14 Order WQ 2024-0046; 15 WHEREAS the statutory time period for any aggrieved party to file a petition for writ of 16 mandate for review of the State Water Board’s May 7, 2024 administrative action ran from 30 17 days following said action (Wat. Code § 13330, subd. (a)); 18 WHEREAS, no petitions for writ of mandate challenging that action were filed within the 19 statutory time period, and under California law Order WQ 2024-0046 is no longer subject to 20 judicial review (Wat. Code § 13330, subd. (a)); 21 WHEREAS, administrative reconsideration by the State Water Board is not available for 22 Order WQ 2024-0046 because the administrative reconsideration process applies only to actions 23 or failures to act under authority delegated by the State Water Board, not action or failure to act 24 by the five-member State Water Board itself. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 3867, subds. (a)&(b)); 25 WHEREAS, pursuant to rule 144 of the Local Rules, the court approved the parties’ third 26 stipulation requiring that the parties meet and confer and report on the effect of the State Water 27 Board’s Order WQ 2024-0046 on this litigation by July 1, 2024, and extending the State Water 28 Board’s responsive pleading deadline to August 1, 2024 (ECF No. 84); 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS (2:21-cv-00851-DJC-CKD) 1 WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024, the parties met and conferred on the effect of Order WQ 2 2024-0046 on NID’s claims in the current action and have agreed that NID’s claims in this action 3 are moot; 4 THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows: 5 1. NID hereby voluntarily dismisses all claims in this action without prejudice. 6 2. Each party agrees to bear its own costs and fees with regard to this action. 7 3. This stipulation may be executed in counterpart originals and by facsimile or 8 electronic signature, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which shall 9 constitute one and the same document. 10 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 11 12 Dated: July 1, 2024 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 13 /s/ Jenna R. Mandell-Rice 14 JENNA R. MANDELL-RICE Attorneys for Plaintiff Nevada Irrigation District 15 16 17 18 Dated: July 1, 2024 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California ERIC M. KATZ Supervising Deputy Attorney General 19 20 21 /s/ Kristin K. McCarthy 22 KRISTIN K. MCCARTHY Deputy Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendant Eric Oppenheimer in his official capacity as Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS (2:21-cv-00851-DJC-CKD) 1 2 3 4 ORDER Based on the parties’ stipulation, the case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Each party is to bear its own costs and fees. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: July 2, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO DISMISS (2:21-cv-00851-DJC-CKD)

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?