Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01473-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

1070951.2 

ANDREW M. GILFORD (State Bar No. 144994) 

PETER A. NYQUIST (State Bar No. 180953) 

ELIZABETH A. FIERMAN (State Bar No. 231474) WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, 

 RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP

333 South Hope Street 

Sixteenth Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 576-1000 

Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 

E-mail: agilford@wbcounsel.com 

E-mail: pnyquist@wbcounsel.com 

E-mail: efierman@wbcounsel.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HESS CORPORATION (formerly Amerada Hess 

Corporation and erroneously sued as Amereda Hess), ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY 

(formerly Arco Oil and Gas Company), and 

BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY 

(formerly Amoco Production Company and 

erroneously sued as Amoco Petroleum Additives Co.) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 

and WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ARCADY OIL COMPANY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: CIV-S-96 1473 FCD/KJM 

STIPULATION TO MODIFY DATES 

ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT’S 

STATUS ORDER; ORDER 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

AND CROSS-CLAIMS. 

 

1. This case involves alleged environmental contamination at a 

3.5-acre parcel of land (the “DePaoli Site”) located in the San Joaquin Delta, 

adjacent to the Whiskey Slough on Roberts Island in San Joaquin County, 

California. 

2. The Court issued its Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 9
1070951.2 

(“Status Order”) for this action on December 11, 2006, which established 

discovery, pre-trial deadlines and a trial date of August 26, 2008. Plaintiffs 

and the remaining Defendants1

 (collectively, the “Parties”) have recently 

met and conferred on several occasions concerning a potential framework 

for resolution of this matter without further litigation. That framework is set 

forth in Exhibit A, attached to this Stipulation and summarized below. 

3. As described in Exhibit A, the Parties have agreed on a 

proposal to fund and conduct further site assessment and characterization, 

with the goal of achieving closure of the DePaoli Site under oversight of the 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 

(“Regional Board”). Plaintiffs will submit a workplan for additional site 

assessment on or before November 17, 2007, and intend to timely implement 

and complete field activities and characterization upon review and approval 

of the workplan by the Regional Board. Defendants will have the 

opportunity to participate in development and implementation of the 

workplan. 

4. Thereafter, Plaintiffs will seek to timely prepare and submit 

a site closure plan to the Regional Board, with participation by Defendants 

in that process. In the event the Regional Board determines that no further 

 

1 The following Defendants have engaged in good faith discussions with 

Plaintiffs and agree to the terms of this Stipulation: Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation; OXY USA, Inc.; Hamilton Brothers Corporation; Atlantic Oil 

Company, Chevron U.S.A.; EnCana Corporation (formerly Pan Canadian 

Petroleum Company); Marathon Oil Company (for Texas Oil & Gas Corporation); 

Union Oil Company of California dba Unocal; Western Continental Operating 

Company; Hess Corporation (formerly Amerada Hess Corporation); Atlantic 

Richfield Company (formerly Arco Oil and Gas Company); BP America 

Production Company (formerly Amoco Production Company and erroneously 

sued as Amoco Petroleum Additives Co.); ConocoPhillips Company; Venturini 

Associates; Hexadyne Energy Corp.; Hexadyne Drilling Corporation (a dissolved 

California corporation); CMS Nomeco Oil & Gas Co.; and Cleveland Drilling, 

Inc. The other defendants originally named in this action have either been 

dismissed, had a default judgment entered against them, or are otherwise not 

actively participating in the ongoing litigation. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 9
1070951.2 

action at the DePaoli Site is required, Plaintiffs intend to dismiss this action, 

and Defendants will also dismiss all cross-claims and counterclaims. 

5. Should the Regional Board determine that remedial or 

corrective action is required at the DePaoli Site, the Parties have agreed to 

(a) utilize monies contained in an existing trust fund for that purpose and, (b) 

engage in good faith settlement negotiations for the purpose of funding any 

necessary remedial or corrective action, the costs of which exceed the 

amount contained in the trust fund (approximately $75,000). To the extent 

the good faith negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties are 

willing to engage in a court-supervised settlement conference, or a mediation 

before Lester J. Levy (or other mutually-acceptable mediator). Once site 

closure has been achieved, via the Regional Board’s issuance of a “closure” 

or “no further action” letter or similar document, all Parties will dismiss their 

claims and this action will be terminated. 

6. To allow the Parties reasonable time to implement further 

site investigation, characterization and a site closure plan under Regional 

Board oversight, and to avoid undue litigation expense that would otherwise 

be required to comply with the deadlines established in the Status Order, the 

Parties respectfully seek an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16(b) modifying and extending the deadlines set forth within the 

Status Order, as follows: 

 Current Date Proposed Date

Discovery Completion December 3, 2007 July 3, 2008 

Expert Designation December 17, 

2007 

July 17, 2008 

Supplemental Expert 

Designation 

January 8, 2008 August 8, 2008 

Expert Discovery Completion February 5, 2008 October 8, 2008 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 3 of 9
1070951.2 

Last Day for Dispositive 

Motions to be Heard 

April 11, 2008 December 19, 

2008 

Final Pretrial Conference June 20, 2008 

at 1:30 p.m. 

February 27, 2009

at 1:30 p.m. 

Trial August 26, 2008 

at 9:00 a.m. 

(estimated 14-21 

days) 

April 28, 2009 at 

9:00 a.m. 

(estimated 14-21 

days) 

All other pre-trial deadlines shall comply with applicable Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and Local Rules, based on the modified trial date set forth 

above. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between 

the Parties hereto that the deadlines established by the Court in the Status 

Order may be modified as set forth above. 

DATED: November , 2007 ISOLA & RUIZ, LLP 

David R. Isola 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2116 and 

WILLIAM P. DEPAOLI 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 4 of 9
1070951.2 

DATED: November , 2007 WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, 

 RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP 

Andrew M. Gilford 

Peter A. Nyquist Elizabeth A. Fierman 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HESS CORPORATION (formerly Amerada Hess 

Corporation), ATLANTIC RICHFIELD 

CORPORATION (formerly Arco Oil and Gas 

Company), and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION 

COMPANY (formerly Amoco Production 

Company and erroneously sued as Amoco Petroleum Additives Co.) DATED: November , 2007 BRIGHT AND BROWN 

Maureen Bright 

Kristen Taylor 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Atlantic Oil Company, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 

EnCana Corporation (formerly Pan Canadian 

Petroleum Company), Marathon Oil Company 

(for Texas Oil & Gas Corporation), Union Oil 

Company of California, dba Unocal and Western 

Continental Operating Company 

DATED: November , 2007 THE COSTA LAW FIRM 

Daniel P. Costa 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hexadyne Energy Corporation and Hexadyne Drilling Exploration 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 5 of 9
1070951.2 

DATED: November , 2007 ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 

Norman C. Hile 

Stephanie F. Zook Attorneys for Defendant 

CMS Nomeco Oil & Gas Co. 

DATED: November , 2007 BURNHAM & BROWN 

John J. Verber 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Venturini Associates 

DATED: November , 2007 BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP LLP 

Brian S. Haughton 

Donald E. Sobelman 

Maureen L. King 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hamilton Brothers Corporation, Occidental 

Petroleum Corporation and OXY USA, Inc. 

DATED: November , 2007 NORIEGA & BRADSHAW LLP 

Robert J. Noriega 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Cleveland Drilling Co. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 6 of 9
1070951.2 

GLYNN & FINLEY LLP 

Andrew T. Mortl 

Patricia L. Bonheyo 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ConocoPhillips Company, successor by merger to 

Conoco, Inc., and sued as Conoco, Inc. 

O R D E R

Based on the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause existing 

therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, the dates set forth in the 

Scheduling Order are modified to the dates listed above. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 9, 2007 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 7 of 9
1070951.2 

EXHIBIT A

STIPULATED FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLVING LITIGATION 

 Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, “Parties”) have agreed on and 

stipulate to the following framework for resolving Reclamation District No. 

2116, et al. v. Arcady Oil Company, et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. CIV S 96-1473, 

in a manner that is cost-effective, expeditious, and will conserve judicial 

resources. 

1) The Parties agree to an eight-month continuance of all dates provided in 

the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order, subject to Court approval. 

2) Plaintiffs agree to timely perform the remaining DePaoli site 

investigation work and prepare a closure plan for the DePaoli site (such 

work to be funded by Plaintiffs’ insurers) and to: 

a) provide Defendants with copies of all existing consultant documents 

and correspondence with the Regional Board and other regulators 

involved with this site; 

b) provide Defendants’ consultant an opportunity to review and 

comment on future documents submitted to the regulators; 

c) provide Defendants’ consultant an opportunity to participate in 

investigation work, including presence during site visits, observation 

of sampling and, if requested, taking of split samples. 

3) Defendants agree to apply the contents of the existing trust fund – 

approximately $75,000 as of October 31, 2007 – to the reasonable 

remedial costs, if any, necessary to implement a site closure plan 

acceptable to all Parties and approved by the regulators. If the approved 

site closure plan is estimated to cost more than $75,000, the Parties agree 

that, prior to implementation of the site closure plan, they will: 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 8 of 9
1070951.2 

a) participate in informal, good-faith negotiations, with the goal of 

reaching an agreement to fully fund implementation of the site closure 

plan, and, if needed, 

b) participate in a court-supervised settlement conference, or a 

mediation before Lester J. Levy (or another mutually-acceptable 

mediator). 

4) When regulatory closure of the DePaoli site is achieved – via a “closure 

letter,” “no further action” letter, or similar directive – the parties will 

mutually dismiss all claims against each other with prejudice, and 

Plaintiffs will be entitled to any proceeds remaining in the trust fund. 

5) If at any time it becomes clear to the Parties that regulatory closure of the 

DePaoli site cannot be achieved within the time provided by the eightmonth continuance, the Parties will immediately notify the Court of this 

fact, provide the Court with an estimated timetable for reaching site 

closure, and seek the Court’s guidance as to scheduling of further 

proceedings in this action. 

Case 2:96-cv-01473-JAM-DAD Document 384 Filed 11/09/07 Page 9 of 9