California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Dapelo et al

Filing 41

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 40 filed by Richard Dapelo. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/20/17. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JAMES R. ARNOLD (SBN 56262)
JOHN A. BEARD (SBN 301405)
THE ARNOLD LAW PRACTICE (East Bay Office)
3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 331
Lafayette, CA 94549
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
RICHARD DAPELO
dba QUALITY STAINLESS TANKS

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10
11

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, etc.,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-EMC
STIPULATION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE; AND

v.
[PROPOSED] ORDER

14

RICHARD DAPELO, etc., et al.,
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2)

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Defendant Richard Dapelo
respectfully submit this stipulation and proposed order as follows:

18
19

WHEREAS, on November 21, 2016, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a Notice of
Violations and Intent to File Suit (“Notice”) under Clean Water Act § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365.

20

WHEREAS, on January 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendant in this

21

Court. Said Complaint incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in Defendant’s

22

Notice.

23
24

WHEREAS, the settling parties, through their authorized representatives and without
either adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims, or admission by Defendant of any alleged violation or

25
Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-EMC

26

STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 1

1

other wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement Plaintiff’s allegations as

2

set forth in the Notice and Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs and uncertainties of further

3

litigation.

4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff submitted the settling parties’ agreement (“Consent Decree”) to the

5

U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (the “federal agencies”) for a 45-day statutory

6

review period, consistent with 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c) and 40 C.F.R. § 135.5, and that review period

7

has completed. The federal agencies were provided with the Consent Decree on September 14,

8

2017. On November 6, 2017, the federal agencies submitted correspondence to the Court

9

indicating that they have no objection to the terms of the Consent Decree. (ECF no. 37.)

10

WHEREAS, on November 9, 2017, this Court entered the Consent Decree. (ECF no. 39.)

11

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to that the settling

12

parties request an order from this Court (1) dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims as to

13

Defendant, as set forth in the Notice and Complaint, and (2) concurrently retaining jurisdiction

14

over the settling parties through September 1, 2019, or as otherwise indicated in Paragraph 4 of

15

the Consent Decree, for the purpose of resolving any disputes between the settling parties with

16

respect to enforcement of the Consent Decree.

17
Respectfully submitted,
18
19

DATED: November 16, 2017

THE ARNOLD LAW PRACTICE

20
By:

21
22

/s/ James R. Arnold
JAMES R. ARNOLD
Counsel for Defendant
RICHARD DAPELO

23
24
25
Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-EMC

26

STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 2

1

DATED: November 16, 2017

AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP LLP

2
By:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

/s/ Anthony M. Barnes
ANTHONY M. BARNES
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE

ATTESTATION FOR E-FILING
I hereby attest pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3) that I have obtained concurrence in the
filing of this document from the signatories prior to filing.
DATED: November 16, 2017

By:

/s/ John A. Beard

10
11
12
13
[PROPOSED] ORDER

14

R NIA

21

11/20/17
DATED: ______________

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

NO

____________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States d M. Chen
dwar District Judge
Judge E

22

RT

ER

H

23

FO

20

CT
ES
C
AT
T
until September 1, 2019, or as otherwise indicated in Paragraph 4 of the Consent Decree.

RT
U
O

19

shall retain jurisdiction over the parties with respect to disputes arising TRI the Consent Decree
DIS under

LI

18

Dapelo, as set forth in the Notice and Complaint, are dismissed with prejudice, and the Court

24

A

17

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), California Sportfishing Protection Alliance’s claims as to Richard

S

16

Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of

UNIT
ED

15

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

25
Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-EMC

26

STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER - 3