Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01053-55/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTOR N EYS AT LAW

SACR A ME NT O

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

992407.1

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND/OR COSTS

COUNSEL IDENTIFICATION ON FINAL PAGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSOLIDATED SALMON CASES CASE NOS.

1:09-cv-1053-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1090-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1378-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1520-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1580-LJO-DLB

1:09-cv-1625-LJO-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

AND/OR COSTS

Judge: Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al. v. GARY F. LOCKE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1053)

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT v. 

NOAA, et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1090)

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS v. 

GARY F. LOCKE, et al.

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1378)

KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1520)

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al. 

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

et al. (Case No. 1:09-cv-1580)

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. NMFS, et al.

(Case No. 1:09-cv-1625)

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 688 Filed 02/22/12 Page 1 of 6
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTOR N EYS AT LAW

SACR A ME NT O

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

992407.1

-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND/OR COSTS

RECITALS

A. On December 12, 2011, the Court entered its “Final Judgment (Including Schedule 

for Remand)” (Doc. 655) (“Final Judgment”) in the above-captioned Consolidated Salmon Cases. 

Paragraph (B) of the Final Judgment provides as follows: 

“The parties shall meet and confer regarding any request by 

Plaintiffs, or any of them, and/or DWR for recovery of attorneys’ 

fees and/or costs. Any motion for recovery of attorneys’ fees 

and/or costs shall be filed on or before March 1, 2012.”

(Final Judgment at 3:11-13.) The Final Judgment remains in effect except as modified by this 

stipulation and [proposed] order.

B. On January 19, 2012, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s 

Associations/Institute for Fisheries Research, The Bay Institute, California Trout, Friends of the 

River, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly 

Fishers, San Francisco Baykeeper, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, and the Winnemem 

Wintu Tribe, Defendant-Intervenors in the above-captioned Consolidated Salmon Cases, 

appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Final Judgment 

entered in the action, and all interlocutory orders and decisions contributing to that Final 

Judgment. (Doc. 661.) On February 10, 2012, Federal Defendants James W. Balsiger, Michael 

L. Connor, Donald R. Glaser, Gary Locke, Jane Lubchenco, Rodney R. McInnis, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ken Salazar, Lester Snow, 

United States Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of Commerce, United States 

Department of the Interior filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 676). On February 9, 2012, notices of 

cross-appeal were filed by Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands 

Water District (Doc. 667), State Water Contractors (Doc. 669), Coalition for a Sustainable Delta 

and Kern County Water Agency (Doc. 671), and Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California (Doc. 672).

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 688 Filed 02/22/12 Page 2 of 6
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTOR N EYS AT LAW

SACR A ME NT O

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

992407.1

-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND/OR COSTS

/ / /

C. The parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, as identified below, 

have met and conferred and hereby seek to continue the deadline for any motion for recovery of 

attorneys’ fees and/or costs.

STIPULATION

The parties hereby stipulate as follows regarding any motion for recovery of attorneys’ 

fees and/or costs: 

1. Plaintiffs San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Westlands Water District, 

State Water Contractors, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coalition for a 

Sustainable Delta, Kern County Water Agency, Stockton East Water District, Oakdale Irrigation 

District, and South San Joaquin Irrigation District (“Plaintiffs”), or any of them, and/or PlaintiffIntervenor California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) shall be entitled to file any 

motion for recovery of attorneys’ fees and/or costs (“Fee Motion”) beyond the date specified in 

paragraph (B) of the Final Judgment.

2. Any Fee Motion shall be filed by Plaintiffs, or by any of them, and/or by DWR no 

later than 90 days following the entry of a final order disposing of all appeals and cross-appeals in 

the above-captioned Consolidated Salmon Cases.

Dated: February 21, 2012 H. CRAIG MANSON

Westlands Water District

DIEPENBROCK ELKIN, LLP

A Professional Corporation 

KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

A Professional Corporation

By /s/_[Daniel J. O’Hanlon]

DANIEL J. O’HANLON

EILEEN M. DIEPENBROCK

Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAN LUIS & DELTAMENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY and 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 688 Filed 02/22/12 Page 3 of 6
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTOR N EYS AT LAW

SACR A ME NT O

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

992407.1

-4-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND/OR COSTS

Dated: February 21, 2012 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP

By _/s/ [Steven O. Sims]____________

STEVEN O. SIMS

MICHELLE C. KALES

Attorneys for Plaintiffs WESTLANDS WATER 

DISTRICT

Dated: February 21, 2012 BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP

By _/s/ [Gregory K. Wilkinson]______

GREGORY K. WILKINSON

STEVEN M. ANDERSON

Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE WATER 

CONTRACTORS

Dated: February 21, 2012 MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP

By _/s/ [Christopher J. Carr]_________

CHRISTOPHER J. CARR

WILLIAM M. SLOAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff METROPOLITAN WATER 

DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Dated: February 21, 2012 NOSSAMAN LLP

By _/s/ [Paul S. Weiland]____________

PAUL S. WEILAND

AUDREY HUANG

Attorneys for Plaintiffs KERN COUNTY WATER 

AGENCY and COALITION FOR A 

SUSTAINABLE DELTA

Dated: February 21, 2012 HERUM CRABTREE

By _/s/ [Jennifer L. Spaletta]_________

JENNIFER L. SPALETTA

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STOCKTON EAST WATER DISTRICT

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 688 Filed 02/22/12 Page 4 of 6
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTOR N EYS AT LAW

SACR A ME NT O

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

992407.1

-5-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND/OR COSTS

Dated: February 21, 2012 O'LAUGHLIN & PARIS LLP

By _/s/ [William C. Paris III] ________

WILLIAM C. PARIS III

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and SOUTH 

SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Dated: February 21, 2012 KAMALA D. HARRIS

Attorney General of the State of California

By _/s/ [Clifford T. Lee]_____________

CLIFFORD T. LEE

CECILIA L. DENNIS

ALLISON GOLDSMITH

Deputies Attorney General

Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER 

RESOURCES

Dated: February 21, 2012 IGNACIA S. MORENO, Assistant Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief

By _/s/ [Bridget Kennedy McNeil]_____

BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL, Trial Attorney

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section

Attorneys for FEDERAL DEFENDANTS

Dated: February 21, 2012 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

By _/s/ [Katherine S. Poole]_______

KATHERINE S. POOLE

DOUG OBEGI

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 688 Filed 02/22/12 Page 5 of 6
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ,

TIEDEMANN & GIRARD

ATTOR N EYS AT LAW

SACR A ME NT O

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

992407.1

-6-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND/OR COSTS

Dated: February 21, 2012 EARTHJUSTICE

By _/s/ [Michael R. Sherwood]_____

MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD

ERIN M. TOBIN

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors CALIFORNIA 

TROUT, FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATION 

OF FLY FISHERS, PACIFIC COAST 

FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S 

ASSOCIATIONS/INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES 

RESOURCES, SACRAMENTO RIVER 

PRESERVATION TRUST, SAN FRANCISCO 

BAYKEEPER, THE BAY INSTITUTE, 

WINNEMEM WINTU TRIBE

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

Case 1:09-cv-01053-LJO-BAM Document 688 Filed 02/22/12 Page 6 of 6