Northern California River Watch v. Oakland Maritime Support Services, Inc. et al

Filing 123

ORDER Granting 122 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Case Management Conference For Approximately 30 Days. Case Management Statement due by 2/19/2014. Case Management Conference set for 2/26/2014 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/16/2014. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Michael R. Lozeau (State Bar No. 142893)
Richard T. Drury (State Bar No. 163559)
Douglas J. Chermak (State Bar No. 233382)
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone] (fax)
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 70, and EAST BAY
ALLIANCE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,
a non-profit corporation; TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 70, a labor organization; and EAST
BAY ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMY, a non-profit organization,

14

Case No.: 4:10-cv-3912 CW-JSC
JOINT STATUS REPORT RE
SETTLEMENT REVIEW/APPROVAL
PROCESS; REQUEST TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiffs,

15
v.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Date: CMC January 21, 2014;
Time: 2:00
Courtroom 2, 4th Floor

OAKLAND MARITIME SUPPORT
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; WILLIAM
ABOUDI, an individual; and JORGE
GONZALEZ RIVERA d.b.a. CHRISTIAN
BROTHERS TRUCK SERVICES, an
individual; REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF OAKLAND, a local public
agency, and CITY OF OAKLAND, a
municipality;

Hon. Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken

Defendants.
As noted in the Joint Status Report filed on October 24, 2013 (Document No. 120), the
parties have reached a settlement resolving all claims in this action. As also explained in the
October Joint Status Report, the settlement cannot be approved by this Court until it has been
reviewed by certain federal agencies. Specifically, Title 33 of the United States Code, Section
1365(c)(2) (a portion of the Clean Water Act) provides that “[n]o consent judgment shall be

28
062326\5957377v1

1
JOINT STATUS REPORT/PROPOSED ORDER

1
2
3
4
5

entered in an action in which the United States is not a party prior to 45-days following the
receipt of a copy of the proposed consent judgment by the Attorney General and the
Administrator [of the Environmental Protection Agency]”. See also 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 (requiring
settling parties to provide notice to the court of the 45-day agency review period under 33 U.S.C.
§ 1365(c)).

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The 45-day review period required by Section 1365(c)(2) is underway. Notice was
mailed to the federal agencies on December 20, 2013. On December 31, 2013, the federal
agencies acknowledged receipt of the settlement agreement. Based on the acknowledgement
correspondence, the parties anticipate that the federal agencies’ review period will end on
February 6, 2014 (allowing 45 days for the review itself and approximately nine days for mailing
time).
If any of the reviewing agencies objects to the proposed Settlement Agreement, the
parties would promptly attempt to meet and confer in an effort to resolve the federal agencies’
concern(s). The parties might also elect to bring a motion seeking the Court’s approval for the
settlement notwithstanding the federal agencies’ objection(s). In any event, once the 45-day
review period runs early next month, the parties will be in a position to file with the Court either
a Stipulation for Approval of Settlement Agreement or a notice (that the federal agencies have
objected) and a proposal to the Court for how the matter should proceed.
The parties propose to make such a filing no later than February 19, 2014, so that if
needed a CMC could be held on February 26th. The parties make that proposal in light of (1)
the statutory requirement to await the conclusion of the federal agencies’ 45-day review period,
(2) the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, and the parties’ shared desire to avoid
unnecessary litigation expense, and (3) Oakland’s counsel being unavailable (due to long
planned out-of-state travel) to attend a CMC on February 19th (which would be the first available
date consistent with the review period ending on February 6th and the Court’s filing deadline for
CMC statements).
The parties would stress that a CMC on February 26th is not a foregone conclusion. If the

28
062326\5957377v1

2
JOINT STATUS REPORT/PROPOSED ORDER

1
2
3
4
5

federal agencies do not raise any objection(s) to the Settlement Agreement, or if any such
objection(s) can be promptly resolved in a fashion agreeable to all the stakeholders, the parties
anticipate that they would simply file a Stipulation for an order approving the settlement and
ultimately dismissing the action with prejudice. In that event, there would be no need for a CMC
on February 26th, and the parties would of course so advise the Court as early as possible.

6
7

Dated: January 15, 2014

8

/s/ Michael R. Lozeau
MICHAEL R. LOZEAU
Attorney for Plaintiffs

9
10

Dated: January 15, 2014

11

/s/ Meredith E. Brown
(as authorized on 1/15/2014)
MEREDITH E. BROWN
Attorney for Defendants
OAKLAND MARITIME SUPPORT
SERVICES, INC. and WILLIAM ABOUDI

12
13
14
15

Dated: January 15, 2014

16

/s/ Robert Doty
(as authorized on 1/15/2014)
ROBERT DOTY
Attorney for Defendants
CITY OF OAKLAND and
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF OAKLAND

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, and with the consent of all parties in this action, THE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR JANUARY 22ND IS CONTINUED TO
FEBRUARY 26, 2014, AT 2:00. IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

16
Dated: January __, 2014

Hon. Claudia Wilken
United States District Chief Judge

27
28
062326\5957377v1

3
JOINT STATUS REPORT/PROPOSED ORDER