Los Padres Forestwatch v. United States Forest Service et al

Filing 60

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. The Clerk shall close the file. Motions terminated: 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Koh on 4/18/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Michael W. Graf (CA Bar # 136172) 227 Behrens Street El Cerrito CA 94530 Tel: (510) 525-7222 Fax: (510) 525-1208 mwgraf@aol.com Sharon E. Duggan (CA Bar # 105108) 370 Grand Avenue Suite 5 Oakland, CA 94610 Tel: 510-271-0825 Fax: 510-271-0829 FoxSDuggan@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General PETER C. WHITFIELD (HI Bar No. 08749) U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044-0663 Phone: (202) 305-0430 Fax: (202) 305-0274 peter.whitfield@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH, a non-profit organization, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, PEGGY HERNANDEZ, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Los Padres National Forest, Defendants. Case No. C 10-03653 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Honorable Lucy H. Koh (LHK) Plaintiff Los Padres ForestWatch and Defendants United States Forest Service and Peggy 1 2 Hernandez (together the “Forest Service”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, 3 hereby aver as follows: 4 WHEREAS, on August 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory and 5 Injunctive Relief alleging that the Forest Service, in approving a road brushing project, had failed 6 to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”); 7 8 WHEREAS, on August 13, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a sixty-day Notice of Intent to Sue letter to the Forest Service under the federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. § 9 1536(a)(2), informing it of Plaintiff’s intent to amend its complaint to add a claim under the ESA 10 11 12 for failure to consult with the federal wildlife agencies on the effects of the Project and other road maintenance activities on threatened and endangered plants and wildlife; WHEREAS, the parties, through their authorized representatives, have reached 13 14 agreement on the terms of a settlement (“Settlement Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, 15 which they consider to be a just, fair, adequate, and equitable resolution of the issues in this case; Accordingly, the parties do hereby stipulate as follows: 16 17 1. 18 Agreement becomes effective upon an order of this Court dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims with 19 prejudice. 20 2. 21 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994). 22 Dated: April 11, 2011 23 /s/ Michael W. Graf Michael W. Graf Sharon E. Duggan Attorneys for Plaintiff 24 25 The Agreement resolves all the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in this case. The The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to oversee compliance with the Agreement. IGNACIA MORENO Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /s/Peter C. Whitfield Peter C. Whitfield, United States Department of Justice Attorneys for Defendants 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 ORDER The above-captioned case is dismissed with prejudice, except that the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to oversee compliance with the Agreement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insur. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).1 5 6 7 The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: April 18, 2011 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 The Court finds that the parties’ agreement for $60,000 for all attorney’s fees and costs Plaintiff incurred in anticipation of or in connection with this litigation is reasonable given Plaintiff’s substantial efforts in this action. Those efforts include, but are not limited to: (1) months-long efforts to work with the Forest Service to resolve the environmental issues in connection with the Project without litigation; (2) submitting a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue letter to the Forest Service under the Endangered Species Act; (3) filing and arguing a successful motion for a preliminary injunction; (4) over six months of work to informally resolve this action with the Forest Service after the Complaint was filed; (5) working out interim conditions that allowed the Project to proceed with environmental protections in place; and (6) filing a motion for summary judgment on an expedited basis. 3 2

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?