STIPULATION AND ORDER RESOLVING PENDING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiffs Felice Pace and Wilderness Watch filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's September 30, 2013, Order Granting Motion to Strike. The Court's Order Granting Motion to Strike resolved defendants Charlton H. Bonham and Stafford Lehr's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint (filed May 10, 2013). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' pending motion.

In order to resolve Plaintiffs' pending motion, resolve this case in an efficient manner, and facilitate decision and review of the substantive issue decided by the Court's Order Granting Motion to Strike, the parties agree to the following:

1. Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration should be treated as a motion for reconsideration, and reconsideration should be granted on the procedural question of whether a motion to strike should have been granted.

2. Any allegations about dead fish are removed from this case, and specifically the sentence "Mortality rates from the aerial stocking of fish often approach 50%, as a result of transport, the drop, or because these stocked fish do not feed or survive well after stocking." found in paragraph 10 at lines 4 to 5 of page 4 is stricken from the Second Amended Complaint.

3. Reconsideration granted, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint will be pending before the Court. That motion shall be treated as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss all the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (as modified by agreement of the parties in paragraph 2 above). The parties respectfully request that the Court rule on that motion based on the papers already filed, although they will submit additional briefing and/or appear at a hearing if the Court requests.

4. While Plaintiffs do not agree with the Court's substantive ruling in its Order Granting Motion to Strike (and preserve their right to challenge that ruling), the parties understand that that substantive ruling applied to a pending motion to dismiss would likely mean the Court would grant Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

5. Given these stipulations, and to efficiently and effectively resolve this case and place it in a posture for appeal, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the following order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, as modified, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court orders as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.