Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05509/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05509-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

KELLI L. TAYLOR

Assistant United States Attorney

JASON EHRLINSPIEL

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2741

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLI MAE THROCKMORTON

TERBUSH; JAMES W. TERBUSH,

Heirs at law and successor in interest;

PETER JAMES TERBUSH, Decedent,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

No. 1:02-cv-05509-SMS

SETTLEMENT STIPULATION;

RELEASES; DISMISSAL; ORDER

THEREON

It is hereby stipulated by and between Plaintiffs STANLI MAE THROCKMORTON TERBUSH;

JAMES W. TERBUSH, Heirs at law and successor in interest; PETER JAMES TERBUSH, Decedent,

("Plaintiffs") and Defendant the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, collectively referred to as the

“Settling Parties", and their undersigned attorneys as follows:

1. On May 3, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages arising from the June 13, 1999,

death of their son, Peter Terbush, in Yosemite National Park. On July 15, 2002, the United States

answered the Plaintiffs’ Complaint denying the allegations therein and asserting numerous affirmative

defenses. Extensive litigation, discovery and motions followed. On December 8, 2005, the District

Court granted the United States’ Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the discretionary function

exemption applied to Plaintiffs’ claims and thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the

1

Case 1:02-cv-05509-SMS Document 176 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 5
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

lawsuit. Plaintiffs appealed. On February 21, 2008, the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the failure

to warn claims and those regarding the design, construction, and development (including situate, control,

management, repair, operation and supervision) of the wastewater facilities. Terbush v. United States,

516 F.3 1125 (2008). Although the Ninth Circuit agreed that the discretionary function exception can

apply to maintenance issues, it remanded this issue because the record was insufficient to rule as a matter

of law on this claim. Id. Thereafter, additional extensive litigation, discovery and motions followed,

including the filing of another motion to dismiss by the United States. On January 28, 2010, the district

court again granted the United States’ motion to dismiss. On February 5, 2010, the United States timely

filed a cost bill seeking $15,210.04 in costs for this case. 

2. The Settling Parties hereby agree to settle and compromise each and every claim of any

kind, whether known or unknown, including right to appeal, arising directly or indirectly from the acts or

omissions that gave rise to the above-captioned action under the terms and conditions set forth in this

Stipulation. Specifically, the United States agrees to waive all costs and expenses incurred in the

defense of this action in full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims, demands, rights, and

causes of action of whatsoever kind and nature, arising from, and by reason of any and all known and

unknown, foreseen and unforeseen bodily and personal injuries and death, damage to property and the

consequence thereof, resulting, and to result, from the subject matter of this action, including any claims

by Plaintiffs or their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, and each of them, now have or may

hereafter acquire against the United States arising from issues involved in this litigation. 

3. Plaintiffs and their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns hereby agree to accept the

waiver of costs set forth in paragraph 2 as full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims, demands,

rights, and causes of action of whatsoever kind and nature, arising from, and by reason of, any and all

known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen bodily and personal injuries, damage to property and the

consequences thereof that they may have or hereafter acquire against the United States and its agents,

servants, contractors, and employees on account of the same subject matter that gave rise to this action,

including any appeal rights and/or future claim or lawsuit of any kind or type whatsoever, whether

known or unknown, and whether for compensatory or exemplary damages. Plaintiffs and their heirs,

executors, administrators, or assigns further agree to reimburse, indemnify and hold harmless the United

2

Case 1:02-cv-05509-SMS Document 176 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 5
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

States and its agents, servants, contractors and employees from and against any and all causes of action,

claims, liens, rights, or subrogated or contribution interests incident to or resulting from further litigation

or the prosecution of claims arising from the subject matter of this action.

4. Plaintiffs’ undersigned attorney represents that he has explained, and Plaintiffs warrant and

represent that they intend, that this Stipulation shall release all existing and future claims arising directly

or indirectly from the acts or omissions that gave rise to the above-captioned action, including claims

that are unknown and unforeseen, notwithstanding Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of

California, which provides as follows:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not

know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing [this]

Release, which if known by him must have materially affected his

settlement with the debtor.

5. This Stipulation is not, is in no way intended to be, and should not be construed as, an

admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States or its agents, servants, contractors, or

employees, and it is specifically denied that they are liable to Plaintiffs. In fact, the United States has at

all times denied liability in this case. This settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of

compromising disputed claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of appeal and/or further litigation.

6. The Settling Parties agree that they will each bear their own costs, fees, and expenses; that no

attorney's fees or litigation or expert expenses owed by Plaintiffs will be paid by the defendant; and that

all outstanding or future litigation related bills and liens will be the sole responsibility of Plaintiffs. The

United States agrees to withdraw the pending memorandum of costs upon the court’s approval of this

stipulation and entry of order thereon. 

7. The Settling Parties and their undersigned attorneys agree to execute and deliver such other

and further documents as may be required to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

8. Each person signing this Stipulation warrants and represents that he or she possesses full

authority to bind the person[s] on whose behalf he or she is signing to the terms of the Stipulation.

9. Each person signing this Stipulation warrants and represents that no promises, inducements,

or other agreements not expressly contained herein have been made; that this Stipulation contains the

3

Case 1:02-cv-05509-SMS Document 176 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 5
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

entire agreement between the Settling Parties; and that the terms of this Stipulation are contractual and

not mere recitals. This Stipulation may not be altered, amended, modified, or otherwise changed in any

respect, except by a writing duly executed by the party to be charged. All prior oral understandings,

agreements, and writings are superseded by this Stipulation and are of no force or effect.

10. Each person executing this Stipulation represents that he or she has read and understands its

contents; that he or she executes this Stipulation voluntarily; that he or she has not been influenced by

any person acting on behalf of any party.

11. The parties agree that this settlement can be executed in counterparts and that not all

signatures need to appear on the same page.

12. The above-captioned action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety and,

upon approval by the Court as provided below, the Clerk of the Court is requested to enter this dismissal

and release in the official docket.

13. Notwithstanding the entry of a dismissal herein, the Settling Parties hereby stipulate that

Hon. Sandra Snyder, Magistrate Judge, shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this compromise

settlement.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: May 4, 2010 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By /s/ Kelli L. Taylor 

KELLI L. TAYLOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for the United States of America

DATED: April 26, 2010 BARR AND MUDFORD

By /s/ Dugan Barr 

DUGAN BARR

Attorneys for Plaintiffs STANLI MAE

THROCKMORTON TERBUSH; JAMES W. TERBUSH,

Heirs at law and successor in interest; PETER JAMES

TERBUSH, Decedent

4

Case 1:02-cv-05509-SMS Document 176 Filed 05/06/10 Page 4 of 5
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

DATED: April 27, 2010 By /s/ Stanli Mae T. Terbush 

STANLI MAE THROCKMORTON TERBUSH, Heir at

law and successor in interest; PETER JAMES TERBUSH,

Decedent

DATED: April 27, 2010 By /s/ James W. Terbush 

JAMES W. TERBUSH, Heir at law and successor in

interest; PETER JAMES TERBUSH, Decedent

ORDER

Pursuant to the Settling Parties’ stipulated settlement, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby

approves the stipulated settlement and orders this action dismissed with prejudice with Plaintiffs to

waive all appeal rights and the Secretary to waive her right to collect costs with prejudice and per the

other terms and conditions set forth in the settlement agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:02-cv-05509-SMS Document 176 Filed 05/06/10 Page 5 of 5