Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME

DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

JOHN V. DIEPENBROCK, SBN 023963 

JEFFREY L. ANDERSON, SBN 157982 

CHRIS A. McCANDLESS, SBN 210085 

DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

A Professional Corporation 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4413 

Telephone: (916) 492-5000 

Facsimile: (916) 446-4535 

G. DAVID ROBERTSON, SBN 111984

ROBERTSON & BENEVENTO 

50 West Liberty Street, Suite 600 

Reno, Nevada 89501 

Telephone: (775) 329-5600 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY 

DISTRICT, a public utility entity, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

1442.92 ACRES OF LAND IN ALPINE 

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; F. HEISE LAND 

& LIVE STOCK COMPANY, INC., a 

Nevada corporation; WILLIAM WEAVER; 

EDDIE R. SNYDER; CROCKETT 

ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:02-cv-0238-MCE-JFM 

[Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr.] 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16-160 

On November 16, 2006, this Honorable Court entered its ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT 

AND DISPOSITION (Docket #670) noting that this action had been settled and requiring the 

parties to file all dispositional documents on or before December 10, 2006 pursuant to Local Rule 

16-160 (“Order”). Thereafter, the parties worked diligently to prepare the appropriate settlement 

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 679 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 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 

2 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME

DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

documentation and ultimately submitted same to the Court on November 28, 2006. This 

Honorable Court then issued its ORDER RE: DEPOSIT WITHDRAWAL on November 30, 

2006 (Docket #676) requiring the California State Treasury to pay the deposited amount of 

$9,150,000 (“Payment”) to Integrated Farms, and further requiring Integrated Farms to file the 

Acknowledgment of Receipt of Compensation with the Final Order of Compensation within 24 

hours of receiving said Payment. The California State Treasury, following its internal procedural 

rules, issued a “warrant” for the Payment on December 4, 2006, which, although immediately 

deposited, takes ten (10) days to “clear” the State Treasury’s Deposit Account, so Integrated 

Farms will not actually receive its funds until Thursday, December 14, 2006. 

While the parties have proceeded as diligently as possible, the State Treasury’s ten (10) 

day waiting period to clear the funds has delayed the process and will therefore prevent the parties 

from filing the Acknowledgment of Receipt of Compensation with the Final Order of 

Compensation on or before December 10, 2006. It is anticipated that the funds will not be 

“cleared” by the State Treasury (and thus “received” by Integrated Farms) until at least December 

14, 2006, and therefore the parties will not be able to file the final dispositional documents until 

after the Court’s present deadline. 

Local Rule 16-160(b) states that the Court shall fix the date for filing dispositional 

documents following a settlement, which the Court has done here pursuant to its Order. The Rule 

further states, however, that the Court may extend such date “on good cause shown.” Id. It is 

respectfully submitted that the State Treasury’s unusual procedure of refusing to issue a check for 

the Payment - instead issuing a “warrant” requiring a ten (10) day delay - represents “good cause” 

for the parties to request a twelve (12) day extension of the Court’s previous deadline to file the 

dispositional documents. The parties have worked together diligently and in good faith to file the 

dispositional documents by the Court’s deadline, but the parties could not overcome the State 

Treasury’s rigid rules requiring that the release of all condemnation proceeds occur only by a 

warrant. The parties seek twelve (12) days rather than a shorter time in order to avoid bothering 

again the Court should a few extra days be needed. 

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 679 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME

DIEPENBROCK 

HARRISON

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

It is therefore stipulated by and between the parties that they shall have an additional 

twelve (12) days, i.e., until December 22, 2006, in which to file the dispositional documents. 

Dated: December 9, 2006 DIEPENBROCK HARRISON 

 A Professional Corporation 

 ROBERTSON & BENEVENTO 

 

 By: __/s/ G. David Robertson___________ 

 G. DAVID ROBERTSON 

 JOHN V. DIEPENBROCK 

 Attorneys for Integrated Farms, LLC 

Dated: December 9, 2006 HATCH & PARENT 

 A Professional Corporation 

 

 By: ___/s/ Robin L. Lewis______________ 

 ROBIN L. LEWIS 

 Attorneys for South Tahoe Public Utility 

 District 

 

ORDER 

Upon the foregoing stipulation by the parties, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS SO ORDERED that the parties shall have an additional twelve (12) days, i.e., until 

December 22, 2006, in which to file the dispositional documents 

DATED: December 12, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 679 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 3