IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
April 18, 2011
LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH, A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION,
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, PEGGY HERNANDEZ, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FOREST SUPERVISOR FOR THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Lucy H. Koh
Michael W. Graf (CA Bar # 136172) 227 Behrens Street El Cerrito CA 94530 Tel: (510) 525-7222 Fax: (510) 525-1208 firstname.lastname@example.org Sharon E. Duggan (CA Bar # 105108) 370 Grand Avenue Suite 5 Oakland, CA 94610 Tel: 510-271-0825 Fax: 510-271-0829 FoxSDuggan@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General PETER C. WHITFIELD (HI Bar No. 08749) U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044-0663 Phone: (202) 305-0430 Fax: (202) 305-0274 16 email@example.com Attorneys for Defendants
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Plaintiff Los Padres ForestWatch and Defendants United States Forest Service and Peggy Hernandez (together the "Forest Service"), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, 3 hereby aver as follows: 4
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief alleging that the Forest Service, in approving a road brushing project, had failed 6 to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"); WHEREAS, on August 13, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a sixty-day Notice of Intent to Sue letter to the Forest Service under the federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), informing it of Plaintiff's intent to amend its complaint to add a claim under the ESA 10 for failure to consult with the federal wildlife agencies on the effects of the Project and other 11 road maintenance activities on threatened and endangered plants and wildlife; WHEREAS, the parties, through their authorized representatives, have reached agreement on the terms of a settlement ("Settlement Agreement"), attached hereto as Exhibit A, which they consider to be a just, fair, adequate, and equitable resolution of the issues in this case;
Accordingly, the parties do hereby stipulate as follows:
1. The Agreement resolves all the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in this case. The Agreement becomes effective upon an order of this Court dismissing the Plaintiff's claims with 19 prejudice.
2. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to oversee compliance with the Agreement. 21
See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
The above-captioned case is dismissed with prejudice, except that the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to oversee compliance with the Agreement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insur. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).*fn1
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge