Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00737-2/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 

 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 

MICHAEL R. LOZEAU (Cal. Bar No. 142893) 

Law Office of Michael R. Lozeau 

1516 Oak Street, Suite 216 

Alameda, CA 94501 

Tel: (510) 749-9102 

Fax: (510) 749-9103 

E-mail: mrlozeau@lozeaulaw.com 

SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non profit 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

LODI IRON WORKS, INC. 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:06-cv-00737-FCD-PAN 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WITH 

PREJUDICE; ORDER GRANTING 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE [FRCP 

41(a)(2)] 

 

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2006, Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

(“CSPA”) provided Defendant Lodi Iron Works, Inc. with a Notice of Violations and Intent to 

File Suit (“Notice”) under Clean Water Act §505, 33 U.S.C. §1365. 

WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006 CSPA filed its Complaint against Lodi Iron Works in this 

court, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Lodi Iron Works, Inc. Case No. 2:06-cv00737-FCD-EFB. Said Complaint incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in 

CSPA’s Notice. 

Case 2:06-cv-00737-FCD-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/01/07 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 

 2 

WHEREAS, CSPA and Lodi Iron Works, through their authorized representatives and 

without either adjudication of CSPA’s claims or admission by Lodi Iron Works of any alleged 

violation or 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. A copy of the [Proposed] Consent Agreement entered into by and between 

CSPA and Lodi Iron Works is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. 

WHEREAS, the parties submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return 

receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice and the 45-day review 

period set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has completed. 

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). The parties respectfully request an order 

from this Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In accordance with paragraph 33 of the 

Consent Agreement, the parties also request that this Court retain and have jurisdiction over the 

Parties with respect to disputes arising under the agreement. 

Dated: February 28, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 

By: /s/ Michael Lynes

Michael Lynes 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: February 28, 2007_ STANZLER FUNDERBURK & CASTELLON LLP 

By: /s/ William Funderburk

William W. Funderburk 

Attorney for Defendant 

[Signed with consent of counsel]

Case 2:06-cv-00737-FCD-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/01/07 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 

ORDER 

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance’s 

claims against Lodi Iron Works, Inc. as set forth in the Notice and Complaint filed in Case No. 

2:06-cv-00737-FCD - EFB, 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. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: March 1, 2007 

Case 2:06-cv-00737-FCD-EFB Document 17 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 3