Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00245/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00245-18/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT — 1:06-CV-245 OWW LJO 1

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

MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD, State Bar No. 63702 

ANDREA A. TREECE, State Bar No. 237639 

Earthjustice 

426 17th Street, 5th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612 

msherwood@earthjustice.org

atreece@earthjustice.org

Telephone: (510) 550-6725 

Facsimile: (510) 550-6749 

TRENT W. ORR, State Bar No. 077656 

953 Clayton Street, #5 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

torr@earthjustice.org

Telephone: 415/665-2185 

Facsimile: 415/665-2592 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

HAMILTON CANDEE, State Bar No. 111376 

KATHERINE POOLE, State Bar No. 195010 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

111 Sutter St., 20th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

hcandee@nrdc.org; kpoole@nrdc.org

Telephone: 415/875-6100 

Facsimile: 415/875/6161 

Attorneys for Plaintiff NRDC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF 

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS/INSTITUTE 

FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of Commerce et al., 

 Defendants. 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER 

AUTHORITY, et al., 

 Defendant-Intervenors. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:06-CV-0245 OWW LJO 

STIPULATION REGARDING AMENDMENT 

OF COMPLAINT TO ADD NEPA CLAIM 

AND RELATED BRIEFING 

ORDER 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 169 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT — 1:06-CV-245 OWW LJO 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

WHEREAS on June 15, 2007, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order 

Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Decision and 

Order”) in which the Court dismissed the Seventh Claim for Relief in the First Amended Complaint 

(“complaint”) regarding alleged violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), but 

which also granted plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint; and 

WHEREAS briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining six claims for 

relief in the complaint is underway, with final briefs due July 30, 2007 and hearing on cross-motions 

for summary judgment set for August 27, 2007; and 

WHEREAS the parties do not wish to delay or postpone the on-going summary judgment 

briefing or the August 27, 2007 hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining 

six claims for relief; 

NOW THEREFORE the parties hereby stipulate1, subject to approval and order of the Court, 

as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days after the Court renders its decision on the 

pending cross-motions for summary judgment within which to file any amendment to the First 

Amended Complaint relating to the NEPA claim that the Court has dismissed. 

2. If plaintiffs choose to so amend the complaint, then federal defendants and defendantintervenors shall have thirty (30) days to respond to the amended complaint. Within that thirty-day 

period, the parties shall confer and attempt to agree upon the scheduling of any further briefing as 

may be needed with respect to the amended complaint and NEPA claim, and shall submit to the 

Court for its approval any such agreed-upon briefing schedule. 

 

1

Federal defendants do not join in this stipulation. An e-mail dated July 2, 2007 from counsel for 

federal defendants, Keith Rizzardi, states in full: “Federal Defendants do not join the stipulation, 

and further reserve all rights to object to any motion to amend the complaint, or to oppose the 

amended complaint, whenever filed.” Plaintiffs point out that the Court has already granted 

plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. See Memorandum Decision and Order Granting 

Defendants’ Motion To dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 150) at 39 (motion to 

dismiss NEPA claim “is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND”) (upper case in original). 

Therefore, a motion for leave to file an amended complaint is not at issue, but only the timing of that 

filing. Plaintiffs further point out that the stipulation specifically preserves federal defendants’ and 

defendant-intervenors’ right “to respond to” the amended complaint, whenever filed, however they 

deem appropriate including opposing it. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 169 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT — 1:06-CV-245 OWW LJO 3

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

3. If plaintiffs choose not to amend the complaint, then the Court’s Decision and Order 

shall become a final ruling and judgment on the NEPA claim. 

DATED: July 5, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Michael R. Sherwood 

MICHAEL R. SHERWOOD 

ANDREA A. TREECE 

TRENT W. ORR 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

KATHERINE S. POOLE 

HAMILTON CANDEE 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

RONAL J. TENPAS 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment and Natural Resources Division 

JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Chief 

SETH M. BARSKY, Assistant Chief 

(Opposed) 

KEITH RIZZARDI, Trial Attorney 

Wildlife and Marine Resources Section 

Benjamin Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369 

Washington, D.C. 20044-7369 

Telephone: (202) 305-0207 

Facsimile: (202) 305-0275 

WILLIAM SHAPIRO, Trial Attorney 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

501 I Street, Suite 9-700 

Sacramento, CA 95814-2322 

Attorneys for Federal Defendants 

/s/ Daniel J. O’Hanlon (authorized 7/5/07)

DANIEL J. O’HANLON 

JON D. RUBIN 

Attorneys for Intervenors San Luis & Delta-Mendota 

Water Authority and Westland Water District 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 169 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT — 1:06-CV-245 OWW LJO 4

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

/s/ Christian C. Scheuring (authorized 7/5/07)

CHRISTIAN C. SCHEURING 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER 

BRENDA WASHINGTON DAVIS 

CHRISTOPHER H. BUCKLEY, JR. 

Attorneys for Intervenors 

California Farm Bureau Federation 

/s/ Andrew M. Hitchings (authorized 7/5/07)

ANDREW M. HITCHINGS 

Attorney for Intervenors 

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, et al.

(Unavailable) 

GREGORY WILKINSON 

JASON ACKERMAN 

Attorney for Intervenors State Water Contractors 

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.

DATED: 7/6/2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanager 

HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER 

United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:06-cv-00245-OWW -GSA Document 169 Filed 07/09/07 Page 4 of 4