Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;

and CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE,

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

______________________________

AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS.

----oo0oo----

On March 11, 2010, the United States and the Federal

Defendants (collectively referred to as “United States”) and the

South Tahoe Public Utility District (“District”) filed the Joint

Motion now before the Court, which requests dismissal, with

prejudice, of certain claims made in conjunction with this

lawsuit. Specifically, both parties ask that the claim for Quiet

Title against the United States, as set forth in the District’s

Second Amended Third Party Cross-Complaint, be dismissed with

prejudice. 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 373 Filed 03/31/10 Page 1 of 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

 Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the 1

Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 230(g). 

2

Both parties further request that the District’s Fourth Party

Complaint against the Federal Defendants for Declaratory and

Injunctive Relief under the Administrative Procedures Act also be

dismissed with prejudice. Finally, the parties ask that the

United States’ Third Party Cross-Claims against the District for

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and for Trespass and

Ejectment, be dismissed with prejudice as well. All of the above

enumerated claims were previously dismissed, without prejudice,

by the Court’s Order filed January 27, 2010 (Docket No. 369). 

The instant Motion was filed given certain terms of the

Settlement Agreement between the parties providing that a motion

for dismissal with prejudice would be filed once certain appeals

period had run. No opposition to the present Motion has been

made. 

Given that lack of opposition, and good cause appearing

therefor, the parties’ Joint Motion for Dismissal (Docket No.

372) is GRANTED. The April 8, 2010 hearing date on said Motion 1

is accordingly vacated. The above-described claims are hereby

dismissed, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 373 Filed 03/31/10 Page 2 of 2