STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE UNDER FED. R. CIV. P 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), EXTEND FILING DEADLINE ON FEE APPLICATION, AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Local Rules 7-1 & 7-12, all parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court dissolve the July 10, 2007 preliminary injunction, as modified, in all respects, extend the deadline for filing a fee application and set a briefing schedule, and dismiss this matter with prejudice.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404(b), has issued Permit No. SPK-1994-00365 to ARI 208 LLC, Permit No. SPK-2004-00458 to Arista Del Sol, L.P., Permit No. SPK-1994-00210 to Sunridge-Anatolia LLC, Permit No. SPK-1997-00006 to Comerica Bank, Permit No. SPK-2002-00568 to Douglas 105, and Permit No. SPK-2001-00230 to Cresleigh Homes (hereafter the "Permits"), and, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, completed the Sunridge Environmental Impact Statement in 2010, issued a Record of Decision in 2011, and completed site-specific Supplemental Environmental Assessments in September 2011 and January and February 2013.

STIPULATION

(1) Intervenor-Defendants Arista Del Sol, L.P., Sunridge-Anatolia LLC, Comerica Bank, Douglas 105, ARI 208 LLC and Cresleigh Homes (or successors in interest) agree to waive their rights to administratively appeal or file a lawsuit challenging the Permits.

(2) Provided the projects, as approved by the Permits, are not modified or changed with respect to project configuration and mitigation requirements, Plaintiffs agree not to challenge the Permits or any work done in compliance with the Permits and acknowledge that the Sunridge Environmental Impact Statement and site-specific Supplemental Environmental Assessments referenced above are sufficient for these projects.

(3) Plaintiffs agree to dismiss all claims asserted in this action with prejudice as to all Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants; notwithstanding this dismissal, however, nothing precludes Plaintiffs from bringing a new lawsuit against any project, as approved by the Permits, that is modified or changed with respect to project configuration or mitigation requirements based on any agency approval document, agency action, and any legal theory. Any such challenge shall be limited to the project that is modified or changed. Nothing in this stipulation precludes Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants from raising any legal defense to a claim that Plaintiffs may assert in a separate legal action.

(4) Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants respectfully request that the Court retain jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs' claim for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Intervenor-Defendants do not oppose the Court retaining jurisdiction for this purpose.

(5) Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the deadline for filing motions for attorney fees and costs set forth in Local Rules 54-1 and 54-5 until no later than 30 days after the Court issues an Order dismissing this case. Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants met in person with Magistrate Judge Corley on March 22, 2013, after exchanging settlement conference statements, to attempt to resolve Plaintiffs' EAJA claim. No settlement was reached. If Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants are unable to resolve Plaintiffs' claim for attorney fees and costs within 30 days of dismissal, Plaintiffs will file an Application for fees and costs, pursuant to EAJA. To allow time for settlement discussions to resume if appropriate, Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants stipulate to the following proposed briefing schedule:

Accordingly, the parties request that the Court enter an order approving this Stipulation, dissolving the July 10, 2007 injunction, as amended, extending the deadline for Plaintiffs' fee application and setting the proposed briefing schedule, and dismissing this case with prejudice.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.