Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE v. CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC, 2:12-cv-03078-MCE-DAD. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130816821 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 12, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER THEREON [FRCP 41(a)(2)] MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. TO THE COURT: Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance ("CSPA"), and Defendants in the above-captioned action, stipulate as follows: WHEREAS , on or about October 23, 2012, CSPA provided Defendants with a Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit ("60-Day Notice Letter") under Section 505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("Act" or "
More

STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER THEREON [FRCP 41(a)(2)]

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

TO THE COURT:

Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance ("CSPA"), and Defendants in the above-captioned action, stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on or about October 23, 2012, CSPA provided Defendants with a Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit ("60-Day Notice Letter") under Section 505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("Act" or "Clean Water Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 1365;

WHEREAS, on December 22, 2012, CSPA filed its Complaint against Defendants in this Court, captioned as California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific LLC, et al. (USDC, E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:12-cv-03078-MCE-DAD), and filed an amended complaint against Defendants in this action on January 21, 2013 ("Amended Complaint"), and said Amended Complaint incorporated by reference all of the allegations contained in CSPA's 60-Day Notice Letter;

WHEREAS, CSPA and Defendants, through their authorized representatives and without either adjudication of CSPA's claims or admission by Defendants of any alleged violation or other wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement the allegations of CSPA as set forth in CSPA's 60-Day Notice Letter and Amended Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs and uncertainties of further litigation. A copy of the Parties' proposed consent agreement ("Consent Agreement") entered into by and between CSPA and Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

WHEREAS, CSPA submitted the Consent Agreement via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice ("the agencies") and the 45-day review period set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has been completed without objection by the agencies.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between the Parties that CSPA's claims, as set forth in its 60-Day Notice Letter and Amended Complaint, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Parties respectfully request an order from this Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In accordance with Paragraph 18(b) of the Consent Agreement, the Parties also request that this Court retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties through September 30, 2015, for the sole purpose of resolving any disputes between the Parties with respect to enforcement of any provision of the Consent Agreement.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, and the Parties having stipulated and agreed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance's claims against Defendants CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC, ANDREW GALLI, MICHAEL MALDONADO, and LOUIS B. SCHIPPER, III as set forth in CSPA's 60-Day Notice Letter and Amended Complaint filed in Case No. 2:12-cv-03078, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorney fees and costs, except as provided for by the terms of the accompanying Consent Agreement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties with respect to disputes arising under the Consent Agreement attached to the Parties' Stipulation to Dismiss as Exhibit A until September 30, 2015. At this time, however, inasmuch as the matter has been resolved in its entirety, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer