Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02590/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02590-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

Stipulated Request for Entry of [Proposed] Consent Decree & Dismissal--Civil No. 3:15-cv-02590-MMC

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

George Torgun (Bar No. 222085)

Nicole C. Sasaki (Bar No. 298736)

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800

Oakland, California 94612

Telephone: (510) 735-9700

Facsimile: (510) 735-9160

Email: george@baykeeper.org

Email: nicole@baykeeper.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a non-profit 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN RAFAEL ROCK QUARRY, INC.,

Defendant. 

Civil No. 3:15-cv-02590-MMC

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ENTRY 

OF [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE 

AND DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33

U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

Case 3:15-cv-02590-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 4
Stipulated Request for Entry of [Proposed] Consent Decree & Dismissal--Civil No. 3:15-cv-02590-MMC

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

WHEREAS, on February 11, 2016, Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) and 

Defendant San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”) notified the Court that the 

Parties had reached a tentative settlement in this action and would be sending copy of the 

[Proposed] Consent Decree to the U.S. Department of Justice and to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency for a mandatory 45-day review period under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(3) and 40 

C.F.R. § 135.5, see Dkt. No. 29; 

WHEREAS, on March 29, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice notified the Court and 

the Parties that it did not object to the entry of the [Proposed] Consent Decree, see Dkt. No. 31;

WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court approve and enter 

the [Proposed] Consent Decree as an Order of the Court, order that the above-captioned action be 

dismissed with prejudice, and retain jurisdiction over the Parties for the sole purpose of enforcing 

compliance by the Parties with the terms of the Consent Decree until the Consent Decree 

terminates.

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully stipulate and request that the Court approve and 

enter the Proposed Order below.

DATE: March 29, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Nicole C. Sasaki

Nicole C. Sasaki

Attorney for Plaintiff 

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

/s/ Robert C. Goodman

Robert C. Goodman

Attorney for Defendant

SAN RAFAEL ROCK QUARRY, INC.

Case 3:15-cv-02590-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 4
Stipulated Request for Entry of [Proposed] Consent Decree & Dismissal--Civil No. 3:15-cv-02590-MMC

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

I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Robert C. 

Goodman for San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc.

DATE: March 29, 2016 /s/ Nicole C. Sasaki

Nicole C. Sasaki

Attorney for Plaintiff 

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

Case 3:15-cv-02590-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 4
Stipulated Request for Entry of [Proposed] Consent Decree & Dismissal--Civil No. 3:15-cv-02590-MMC

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [Proposed] Consent Decree, attached hereto as 

Exhibit A, is fully incorporated herein by reference and is entered as an Order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties for 

the sole purpose of enforcing compliance by the Plaintiff and Defendant with the terms of the 

Consent Decree until the Consent Decree terminates. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action against Defendant is 

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ____________________ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

_____________________________________

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

United States District Court

 April 6, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02590-MMC Document 33 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 4