STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS CITY OF PACIFICA AND SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on May 8, 2015, and filed an Amended Complaint on June 26, 2015;

WHEREAS, the original Complaint named City of Pacifica (the "City") as a defendant in the fourth claim for relief regarding alleged Clean Water Act violations, but the Amended Complaint omitted any claim for relief against the City and instead alleged that Plaintiffs "joined, pursuant to FRCP 19(a)(1)," the City "as a potentially required party who is subject to service of process, who may have an interest relating to the subject of the action, and who is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest" (¶ 24);

WHEREAS, the original Complaint named the San Mateo County Transportation Authority ("TA") as a defendant in the fourth claim for relief regarding alleged Clean Water Act violations, and alleged TA violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act. But, the Amended Complaint omitted any claim for relief against TA and instead alleged that Plaintiffs "joined, pursuant to FRCP 19(a)(1)," TA "as a potentially required party who is subject to service of process, who may have an interest relating to the subject of the action, and who is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest" (¶ 23);

WHEREAS, it is the position of the City and TA that the Amended Complaint improperly names them as defendants;

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs are willing to dismiss the City and TA provided that all Defendants agree that the City and TA are not indispensable parties to the lawsuit, and that Defendants waive any defense on such grounds;

WHEREAS, Defendants waive any defense that the case should be dismissed due to failure to join the City and TA;

WHEREAS, all Defendants and Plaintiffs now agree that the City and TA are not indispensable parties;

The Plaintiffs and all Defendants thus stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, to the following:

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: