Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00707-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:7604 Clear Air Act (Emission Standards)

---

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

ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED

RESIDENTS, an unincorporated

association,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED SCHAKEL DAIRY, a California

Proprietorship, FRED SCHAKEL,

owner and operator, SCHAKEL

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a California

Limited Partnership, owner and

operator, AG RESOURCES III, a

California Limited Liability

Company, owner, and SOUTH LAKES

DAIRY, a California general

partnership, owner and operator,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-0707 OWW SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 12/31/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 1/15/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 1/30/08

Settlement Conference Date:

5/29/07 10:00 Ctrm. 7

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 4/21/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 5/28/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-5 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

April 25, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Brent J. Newell, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

David R. Albers, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This case is a citizen suit against Fred Schakel Dairy,

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 13
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

Fred Schakel, Schakel Family Partnership, L.P., Ag Resources III,

LLC, and South Lakes Dairy (collectively “Schakel”) alleging that

Schakel was required, by the Federal Clean Air Act and the

federally approved State Implementation Plan, to obtain an

Authority to Construct permit and comply with air pollution

controls prior to beginning construction of a dairy facility in

Tulare County.

2. The Court previously held a status conference on

September 6, 2005, which the Court continued because of Schakel’s

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief

can be Granted. The Court denied the Motion on December 6, 2005

(Docket #36). The Court subsequently held a Status Conference on

February 22, 2006.

3. By order dated June 19, 2006, the Court reassigned the

case to Hon. Oliver W. Wanger (Docket #70). On October 11, 2006,

the Court vacated the expert reports filing deadline of October

30, 2006, the discovery cut-off of January 16, 2007, the nondispositive motion filing deadline of January 26, 2007, and the

dispositive motion filing deadline of February 2, 2007 (Docket

#115). On October 26, 2006, the Court denied Schakel’s motion to

dismiss on mootness grounds and denied without prejudice

Schakel’s motion for stay (Docket #117). See Association of

Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, 460 F.Supp.2d 1185

(E.D. Cal. 2006). On March 21, 2007, the Court vacated the pretrial conference, set for March 23, 2007, vacated the trial date,

set for May 1, 2007, and set this status conference.

4. Plaintiff Association of Irritated Residents’ (“AIR”)

Third Amended Complaint contains two causes of action that allege

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 13
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

(1) that Schakel began actual construction of a major stationary

source without a permit required by Part D of Title 1 of the

Clean Air Act; and (2) that Schakel began actual construction of

the dairy facility without obtaining an Authority to Construct

Permit from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District (“District”) as required by Rule 2010 and failed to

comply with pollution controls mandated in District Rule 2201.

5. AIR alleges that Schakel began actual construction of a

major stationary source - the dairy facility - on or after

January 6, 2004. AIR alleges that the dairy facility has a

potential to emit Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOC”) or oxides of

nitrogen (“NOx”) in excess of 25 tons per year and failed to

comply with Part D of Title I, as implemented in Rule 2201, by

not obtaining a permit.

6. The Complaint alleges that Schakel began actual

construction of the dairy facility’s emissions units (e.g.,

liquid manure storage lagoons, freestall barns, diesel internal

combustion engines) on or after January 6, 2004, that each

emission unit has a potential to emit more than 2 pounds of VOC

or NOx per day, and that the stationary source’s potential to

emit exceeds 20,000 pounds per year of VOC. The Complaint also

alleges that Schakel has neither obtained the permit required by

Rule 2010 nor complied with the pollution control requirements in

Rule 2201. Those pollution control requirements include (1) the

duty to install Best Available Control Technology at each

emissions unit that has a potential to emit more than 2 pounds of

VOC or NOx per day; and (2) the duty to purchase “offsets” or

“emission reduction credits” when the stationary source’s

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 13
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

4

potential to emit exceeds 20,000 pounds per year of VOC.

7. Schakel claims to have a complete defense in that Air

District brought out (2) notices of violation against Schakel and

both notices of violation have been settled with fines paid. For

certain sources of emissions, Schakel has obtained authority to

construct permits. For other sources, Schakel has filed all

requisites applications, applications have been deemed complete,

and the Air District is conducting its Best Available Control

Technology (“BACT”) analysis and will issue permits.

8. Association of Irritated Residents seeks declaratory

relief, civil penalties of $32,500 per day for each violation

since Schakel began actual construction on or about January 6,

2004, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting

Schakel’s operation of the dairy facility without the required

permits and pollution control requirements, an order requiring

Schakel to remedy the environmental harm caused by the violation

of the Clean Air Act, and attorneys’ fees and costs of

litigation.

9. Schakel seeks to have the Court find that the

allegations are meritless, dismiss the case and grant defendants

their attorneys’ fees and costs.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. AIR seeks leave to amend the complaint to add a third

cause of action. AIR has learned through recently disclosed

information in the public record, including recent research by

one of Schakel’s disclosed experts (Dr. Frank Mitloehner) that

Schakel’s construction of the Fred Schakel Dairy (also known as

the South Lakes Dairy) has violated and continues to violate

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 4 of 13
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

5

section 112(g)(2)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 741(g)(2a)(B), and

federal regulations because Schakel failed to obtain a

determination from the District that the Fred Schakel Dairy would

meet the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) standard

for a new major source of methanol.

2. The Fred Schakel Dairy emits methanol (also known as

wood alcohol) from cows’ enteric emissions (burps and

flatulence), freshly excreted manure, and decomposing feed stored

at the dairy. Methanol is on the Clean Air Act § 112(b)’s list

of Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAP”). The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (“EPA”) has cited numerous potential human

health risks from methanol exposure, including decrease in

gestation time, an increase in the number of required caesariansection births and, in prenatally exposed offspring, instances of

a severe wasting syndrome, concentration-related delay in

sensorimotor development and lower performance on an infant

intelligence test.

3. Based on information and belief, including information

in the public record, and after a reasonably diligent

investigation, the Fred Schakel Dairy has a potential to emit

methanol greater than 10 tons per year, the threshold at which

the stationary source becomes a major source of HAP and must

comply with § 112(g)(2)(B). AIR sent the notice letter on April

19, 2007, a copy of which is attached to the Joint Scheduling

Report as Exhibit 1.

4. AIR seeks leave to amend the complaint on or after June

20, 2007.

5. The Defendants shall have through and including May 15,

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 5 of 13
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

6

2007, to determine whether they will oppose amendment of the

Complaint. 

6. In the event Defendants do not agree to Plaintiff’s

proposed amendment, Plaintiffs shall file their motion to amend

the complaint on or before May 25, 2007. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. The Association of Irritated Residents, Plaintiff,

is an unincorporated association.

2. Fred Schakel Dairy is a California partnership.

3. Defendant South Lakes Dairy is a California

general partnership, which is a successor to Fred Schakel Dairy.

4. Fred Schakel is an individual resident of the

Eastern District of California and an owner and operator of South

Lakes Dairy.

5. The Schakel Family Partnership is a California

limited partnership. The Schakel Family Partnership is a limited

partner of South Lakes Dairy.

6. Ag Resources III is a California limited liability

company. Ag Resources III originally owned the real property on

which the Dairy is constructed.

7. After completion of construction of the Dairy, Ag

Resources III sold the completed Dairy and real property on which

it is located to the Schakel Family Partnership.

8. Defendants do not dispute those portions of the

Third Amended Complaint which generally describe the structure of

the Clean Air Act and defines some of its terms. 

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 6 of 13
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

7

B. Contested Facts.

1. Defendants dispute the allegations relating to

emissions from the project.

2. Whether the project needed any further permits.

3. Whether regulations claimed to be applicable are

in fact applicable to the project.

4. The date construction of the Dairy began. 

5. Defendants allege they commenced construction

prior to removal of the exemption for permitting dairy projects

of this kind.

6. All remaining facts are disputed.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the

Clean Air Act. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. Supplemental jurisdiction is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1367. 

4. Federally required “New Source Review” applies to

new and modified stationary sources in the San Joaquin Valley

that have a potential to emit more than 25 tons per year of

Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOC”) or Oxides of Nitrogen (“Nox”). 

5. The District has implemented New Source Review in

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved Rule 2201. 

6. In addition to Federally-required New Source

Review, the District regulates sources of air pollution as

required by California law.

7. The District included more stringent requirements

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 7 of 13
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

8

in Rule 2010 and 2201, and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (“EPA”) has approved these rules as part of the State

Implementation Plan. 

8. Rule 2010 requires that any person “building,

altering or replacing any operation, article, machine, equipment,

or other contrivance, the use of which may cause the issuance of

air contaminants or the use of which may eliminate or reduce or

control the issuance of air contamination, shall first obtain

authorization for such construction from the [Air Pollution

Control Officer].” Rule 2010 § 3.0.

9. Rule 2201 requires that each “emission unit” at a

stationary source install the Best Available Control Technology

when the potential to emit VOC or NOx exceeds 2 pounds per day. 

Rule 2201 also requires new sources of pollution to purchase

“emission reduction credits” or “offsets” to offset new pollution

introduced into the air basin from the dairy facility and to

engage in an analysis of alternative locations for the facility.

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are disputed.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 8 of 13
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

9

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before December 31, 2007. The Plaintiffs anticipate that they

will be doing testing in August of 2007.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before November 1, 2007. Any

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

before November 30, 2007. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before January 15, 2008,

and heard on February 15, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Sandra M. Snyder in Courtroom 7. 

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 9 of 13
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

10

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than January 30, 2008, and will be heard on March

3, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In

scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. April 21, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. May 28, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3,

7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 10 of 13
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

11

a. 5 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for May 29, 2007,

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 11 of 13
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

12

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are a related matter entitled Association of

Irritated Residents v. C & R Vanderham Dairy, No. 1:05-cv-1593

OWW SMS (E.D. Cal. filed December 16, 2005). 

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 12 of 13
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

13

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00707-LJO-SMS Document 136 Filed 04/30/07 Page 13 of 13