USA v. Case, et al

Filing 103

OPINION AND ORDER: The unopposed motion to enter the consent decree 102 is GRANTED. Signed on 5/30/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 6:16-cv-00328-AA
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM CASE; BILL CASE
FARMS, INC.; CASE FAMILY,
LLC.
Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Before the Court is the United States’ unopposed motion to enter its consent
decree with defendants William Case, Bill Case Farms, Inc., and Case Family, LLC.
Doc. 102.
Judicial review of a consent decree is limited. Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv.
Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1977). “Because of the unique aspects of
settlements, a district court should enter a proposed consent judgment if the court

Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

decides that it is fair, reasonable and equitable and does not violate the law or public
policy.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.
1990). When, as here, the United States is a party to the consent decree, the Court
“should pay deference to the judgment of the government agency which has
negotiated and submitted the proposed judgment.” SEC v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525,
529 (9th Cir. 1984). Although it may explain its reasons for withholding approval of
a proposed consent decree, the court lacks the authority to modify the parties’
proposal and therefore must either accept or reject the proposal as submitted. See
Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 630.
Having carefully considered the consent decree, the Court finds it fair,
reasonable, and consistent with the purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §
1251 et seq. The parties reached this settlement after years of litigation. The United
States represents that settlement followed good faith, arms-length negotiations
conducted by experienced counsel aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their
respective cases. Mot. (doc. 102) at 5. Further, a United States Magistrate Judge
facilitated much of the negotiations. The proposed consent decree would ensure that
Clean Water Act violators bear the cost of the harm for which they are responsible
and would subject defendants to the kinds of remedies that courts are authorized to
order in Clean Water Act cases. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) & (d). The proposed consent
decree’s

on-site

remediation,

preservation,

and

compensatory

mitigation

requirements would address adverse environmental impacts caused by defendants’
unauthorized conduct, and the civil penalties that the proposed consent decree would

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

impose are proportionate to the violations for which the Court held defendants
liable. Finally, the proposed consent decree would achieve significant goals of the
Clean Water Act by, among other things, obligating defendants to remediate the
damage caused by their unauthorized conduct, providing off-site compensatory
mitigation aimed at increasing habitat for endangered juvenile salmonids and high
water refuge for other species, and permanently protecting over 50 acres of aquatic
areas and adjacent riparian land. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (providing that the Clean
Water Act’s objective is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation’s waters).
The unopposed motion to enter the consent decree (doc. 102) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
30th
Dated this _____ day of May 2020.

/s/Ann Aiken
__________________________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER