Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06725/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06725-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

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 STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; CASE NO. C-06 6725 CW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 1 

ANDREW L. PACKARD (Cal. Bar No. 168690) 

MICHAEL P. LYNES (Cal. Bar No. 230462) 

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

319 Pleasant Street 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Tel: (707) 763-7227 

Fax: (707) 763-9227 

E-mail: andrew@packardlawoffices.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non-profit 

corporation; 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

PETALUMA LIVESTOCK AUCTION 

YARD, INC., a corporation, and 

MANUEL A. BRAZIL, an individual; 

LAWRENCE JOHNSON; and 

GREENKO, INC. 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-06 6725 CW 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER 

GRANTING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

[FRCP 41(a)(2)] 

 

 WHEREAS, beginning on or about August 1, 2006, CSPA provided notice of 

alleged violations of the General Permit by Defendants and of CSPA’s intention to file 

suit against Defendants (“Notice”) under the Clean Water Act §505, 33 U.S.C. §1365; 

WHEREAS, on October 30, 2006 CSPA filed its Complaint in this action, entitled 

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Petaluma Livestock Auction Yard, et al., Case No. 

C-06 6725 CW; 

WHEREAS, CSPA and Defendants, through their authorized representatives and without 

either adjudication of CSPA’s claims or admission by Defendants of any alleged violation or 

Case 4:06-cv-06725-CW Document 23 Filed 08/01/07 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 STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; CASE NO. C-06 6725 CW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 2

other wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement the allegations of CSPA as 

set forth in the Notice and Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs and uncertainties of further 

litigation; 

WHEREAS, a copy of the Consent Judgment entered into by and between CSPA and 

Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference; 

WHEREAS, on or about June 4, 2007, the parties submitted the Consent Judgment via 

certified mail, return receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice and 

each of these agencies has confirmed its receipt of same effective June 11th; 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between 

the parties that CSPA’s claims, as set forth in the Notice and Complaint, be dismissed with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) upon the expiration of the 45-day 

review period set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5. The parties respectfully request an order from this 

Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In accordance with paragraph 12 of the Consent 

Judgment, the parties also request that this Court retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties with 

respect to disputes arising under the agreement. 

Dated: ________________ LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 

By: ____________________________________

Andrew L. Packard 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: ________________ POLLOCK & JAMES 

By: _____________________________________

Mark Pollock 

Attorney for Defendants 

Case 4:06-cv-06725-CW Document 23 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; CASE NO. C-06 6725 CW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

ORDER 

 Good cause appearing, and the parties having stipulated and agreed, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection 

Alliance’s claims herein are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction 

over the Parties with respect to disputes arising under the agreement attached to the parties’ 

Stipulation to Dismiss as Exhibit A. 

 

 8/1/07 

Dated: _____________ _____________________________________ 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-06725-CW Document 23 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 3