Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, A Non-Profit Corporation; Northern California River Watch, A Non-Profit Corporation v. Syar Industries

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 20, 2012

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION; NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SYAR INDUSTRIES, INC, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND DISMISSAL ORDER

WHEREAS, on May 1, 2009, Plaintiffs California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Northern California River Watch (collectively "CSPA") provided Defendants Syar Industries, Inc. ("Syar") with a Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit ("Notice") under Clean Water Act § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365;

WHEREAS, on October 1, 2009, CSPA filed its Complaint against Syar in this Court, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance et al. v. Syar Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-25 02745-GEB-EFB. Said Complaint incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 26 CSPA's Notice; 27

WHEREAS, CSPA and Syar, through their authorized representatives and without either 28 adjudication of CSPA's claims or admission by Syar of any alleged violation or other wrongdoing, 29 chose to resolve in full by way of settlement the allegations of CSPA as set forth in the Notice and 2 Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs and uncertainties of further litigation. A copy of the 3 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims ("Settlement Agreement"), without the 4 attached exhibits, entered into by and between CSPA and Syar is filed in ECF #9. 5

WHEREAS, the parties submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice and the 45-day review period set forth 7 at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has been completed and the federal agencies have submitted correspondence to 8 the Court indicating that they have no objection to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 9

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2010, the Court entered an order to dismiss the claims against Syar and to retain jurisdiction over the parties through December 1, 2012, for the sole purpose of 11 resolving any disputes between the parties with respect to enforcement of any provisions of the 12 Settlement Agreement; 13

WHEREAS, on or about October 11, 2012, the parties signed an Amendment to the Settlement Agreement ("Amendment") to include a process whereby Syar will evaluate the efficacy 15 and feasibility of implementing additional pollution controls at the facility that was the subject of the Complaint, as described in the Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit 2;

WHEREAS, the parties submitted the Amendment via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice and the 45-day review period set forth 19 at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has been completed and the federal agencies have submitted correspondence to 20 the Court indicating that they have no objection to the terms of the Amendment; 21

WHEREAS, the parties wish to apprise the Court of the Amendment to the Settlement Agreement; 23 24

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between the parties that the Court shall continue to retain jurisdiction over the parties through December 4, 2014 for the sole purpose of resolving any disputes between them with respect to enforcement of any provisions of the Settlement Agreement and the Amendment thereto. 28

Dated: November 20, 2012 Respectfully submitted, LOZEAU DRURY LLP By: _/s/ Douglas J. Chermak_____________ Douglas J. Chermak Attorneys for Plaintiffs MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: __/s/ Christopher J. Carr (as authorized on November 20, 2012) Christopher J. Carr Attorneys for Defendant

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

20121120

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.