Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04407/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04407-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS;

Case No. 13-cv-4407

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GROSS LAW, P.C.

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

94111

STUART G. GROSS (#251019)

sgross@gross-law.com

GROSS LAW, P.C.

The Embarcadero

Pier 9, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

t (415) 671-4628

f (415) 480-6688

JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (#36324)

jcotchett@cpmlegal.com

PHILIP L. GREGORY (#95217)

pgregory@cpmlegal.com

PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY (#24541)

pmccloskey@cpmlegal.com

COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200

Burlingame, CA 94010

t (650) 697-6000

f (650) 697-0577

SHARON E. DUGGAN (#105108)

foxsduggan@aol.com

ATTORNEY AT LAW

370 Grand Avenue Suite 5

Oakland, CA 94610

t (510) 271-0825

f (510) 271-0829

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ted Souza, Friends Of Del Norte,

Environmental Protection Information Center, and

Center For Biological Diversity

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TED SOUZA, an individual; FRIENDS OF

DEL NORTE; ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION INFORMATION

CENTER, a non-profit corporation; and

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION; MALCOLM

DOUGHERTY, in his official capacity as

Director of the State of California Department

of Transportation; the NATIONAL MARINE

FISHERIES SERVICE; and SAMUEL D.

RAUCH III, in his official capacity as Acting

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-4407-JD

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

AND COSTS 

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 149 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS;

Case No. 13-cv-4407

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GROSS LAW, P.C.

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

94111

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, an individual and non-profit public interest organizations, filed 

an action on September 23, 2013, Case No. 13-cv-4407 (the “Subject Litigation”), against the 

California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) and Malcolm Dougherty, in his official 

capacity as Director of Caltrans (collectively, the “State Defendants”); and against the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), and Eileen Sobeck, in her official capacity as NMFS 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”), concerning 

Caltrans’ proposed 197/199 Safe STAA Access Project on U.S. Route 199 and State Route 197 

in Del Norte County, CA (the “Proposed Project”), see Dkt. 1.;

WHEREAS, as used herein “Subject Litigation” does not include within its definition 

any subsequently filed action or any action currently pending in California State court;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserted seven causes of action, all under the 

Administrative Procedure Act: (1) failure to adequately engage in Endangered Species Act 

(“ESA”) consultation (against NMFS); (2) failure to adequately engage in consultation under § 

305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“MSA”) (against all 

Defendants); (3) failure to adequately engage in Wild and Scenic Rivers Act consultation 

(against the State Defendants); (4) failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (against the State Defendants); 

(5) failure to prepare an adequate Environmental Assessment pursuant to NEPA (against the 

State Defendants); (6) failure to comply with the Department of Transportation Act as required 

by NEPA (against the State Defendants); and (7) failure to comply with NEPA, the ESA, the 

MSA, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Department of Transportation Act (against all 

Defendants);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on March 19, 2014; 

WHEREAS, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction on May 2, 

2014 (the “PI Order”), based on its determination that there were serious questions on the merits 

regarding Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action (ESA claim against NMFS); see DKT. # 87; 

WHEREAS, following a conference with the Court, in lieu of a previously agreed upon 

stay of the Subject Litigation, the parties, pursuant to the Court’s stated preference, entered into 

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 149 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS;

Case No. 13-cv-4407

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GROSS LAW, P.C.

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

94111

a stipulated order that inter alia provided for the injunction to remain in place and dismissed the 

Subject Litigation without prejudice and subject to a tolling agreement, and the stipulated order 

was entered by the Court on July 9, 2014, see DKT. 97 (the “Stipulated Order”);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Complaint and other filings asserted that they filed the Subject 

Litigation for the purpose of advancing the public interest in requiring Caltrans and NMFS to 

meet their obligations under federal law to adequately assess the Proposed Project’s 

environmental impacts, including, without limitation, its impacts on the salmonids of the Smith 

River;

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Award of 

Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs”); 

WHEREAS, The State Defendants and Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Settlement Parties”), 

believe it is in the interests of judicial economy, the public interest, and the Settlement Parties’ 

interests to avoid further litigating Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs; 

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2015, the Settlement Parties reached tentative agreement to 

settle Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs as against the State Defendants for $100,000; 

WHEREAS; on April 13, 2015, the Court terminated as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees 

and Costs, in light of the parties’ tentative settlement and for administrative reasons, see DKT. 

144;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have represented that the law firm of COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP has waived all of its attorneys’ fees incurred in the Subject Litigation

through the date of this Stipulation and Order; and

WHEREAS, the undersigned counsel for The State Defendants has authorized the 

undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs to electronically sign this document on his behalf;

THEREFORE, the Settlement Parties hereby stipulate to the following, subject to Court 

approval:

1. The State Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs the amount of $100,000 in settlement 

of Plaintiffs’ Motion and any and all claims for an award of litigation costs incurred in the 

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 149 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS;

Case No. 13-cv-4407

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GROSS LAW, P.C.

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

94111

Subject Litigation to date, including $85,000 in attorneys’ fees, and $15,000 in other litigation 

costs (the “Payment”). 

2. The Payment shall be made by the State Defendants to Gross Law, P.C., in 

accordance with the payment information provided by Gross Law, P.C., for distribution. 

3. The State Defendants shall submit all necessary paper work for the processing of 

the Payment to the appropriate office(s) within ten (10) business days following entry of this 

Order.

4. Upon entry of this Order, the State Defendants shall be released of any and all 

existing or potential claims for litigation costs, of any type, amount or nature, including 

attorneys’ fees, incurred in or arising from the Subject Litigation through the date of this 

Stipulation and Order that Plaintiffs may have or make against the State Defendants. Plaintiffs 

reserve the right to seek additional fees and costs incurred subsequent to this Stipulation and 

Order in an action other than the Subject Litigation. The State Defendants do not waive any 

right to contest any such fees claimed by Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel, including entitlement 

thereto, with the sole exception that the State Defendants shall not argue that any such claim for 

fees is released by virtue of this Stipulation and Order. 

5. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce and oversee compliance with the 

terms and conditions of this Stipulation and Order.

6. The Settlement Parties, by their duly authorized representatives, agree to this 

Stipulation.

7. The provisions of this Stipulation shall apply to and be binding upon the 

Settlement Parties including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, servants, employees, 

successors, and assigns.

8. This Stipulation constitutes the entire agreement of the Settlement Parties 

concerning the rights and obligations discussed herein. No other agreement shall govern the 

rights of the Settlement Parties with respect to the matters resolved by this Stipulation, except in 

accordance with the terms herein.

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 149 Filed 05/15/15 Page 4 of 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS;

Case No. 13-cv-4407

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GROSS LAW, P.C.

THE EMBARCADERO

PIER 9, SUITE 100

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

94111

9. The Settlement Parties acknowledge and agree that neither this Stipulation nor 

the settlement amount herein shall be used or considered as an admission of any facts alleged in 

the Subject Litigation, or of the substance or merits thereof, or of any liability, fault or 

responsibility concerning any of the allegations or disputes related to the claims for attorneys’ 

fees and costs, including but not limited to the validity of such claims, rates or amounts thereof, 

nor of any allegations in the Complaint, and no past or present wrongdoing on the part of any of 

the Settlement Parties shall in any way be implied by this Stipulation or its terms. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: May 15, 2015 GROSS LAW, P.C.

 /S/ Stuart G. Gross 

STUART G. GROSS

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 15, 2015 RONALD W. BEALS

JANET WONG

DEREK S. VAN HOFTEN

 /S/ Derek S. Van Hoften

DEREK S. VAN HOFTEN

Counsel for State Defendants

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Donato

May 15, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-04407-JD Document 149 Filed 05/15/15 Page 5 of 5