Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

H

A

T

C

H

&

P

A

R

E

N

T, A

L

A

W

C

O

R

P

O

R

A

TIO

N

21 EAST CARRILLO STREET

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

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 

STEVEN L. HOCH (State Bar No. 059505) 

GARY M. KVISTAD (State Bar No. 121869) 

ROBIN L. LEWIS (State Bar No. 199077) 

HATCH & PARENT, A Law Corporation 

21 East Carrillo Street 

Santa Barbara, CA 93101 

Telephone: (805) 963-7000 

Facsimile: (805) 965-4333 

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant/Fourth-Party 

Plaintiff SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY 

DISTRICT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; and 

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:01-cv-1520-MCE-GGH 

STIPULATION TO TAKE 

PENDING FOURTH-PARTY 

MOTIONS OFF CALENDAR; 

ORDER THEREON 

DATE: February 6, 2006 

TIME: 9:00 a.m. 

CTRM: 3 

EL DORADO COUNTY, 

 Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOUGLAS COUNTY, et al., 

 Third-Party Defendants. 

AND ALL RELATED COUNTER, CROSS AND 

FOURTH-PARTY ACTIONS 

This Stipulation and Agreement is entered into on this 20th day of January, 2006, by and 

between South Tahoe Public Utility District (“District”), on the one hand, and the United States of 

America (“United States”) and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (“Forest 

Service”), on the other hand (collectively “the Government”), with reference to the following facts 

and intentions: 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 269 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 5
H

A

T

C

H

&

P

A

R

E

N

T, A

L

A

W

C

O

R

P

O

R

A

TIO

N

21 EAST CARRILLO STREET

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

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 - 

A. The Meyers Landfill Site (“Site”), which is the subject of the abovecaptioned litigation, is located within federally owned lands administered by the Forest Service in 

the Forest Service’s Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, California, 

approximately 2 miles northeast of the community of Meyers, California. 

B. The District provides sewer service to an area located in South Lake Tahoe 

and portions of El Dorado County, California. 

C. On or about January 10, 1968, the Forest Service issued a special use permit 

and, as alleged by the District and disputed by the Government, granted easements (collectively 

“special use permit”) in favor of the District for the purpose of installing and maintaining sanitary 

sewers and appurtenances, together with the rights of ingress and egress therefor. The special use 

permit granted by the Forest Service to the District in January 1968 was subsequently amended in 

December 1968 to include the installation of the District’s Trout Creek Trunk sewer line, a portion 

of which now lies within the Site (“Site portion”). 

D. On or about January 6, 1992, the Forest Service issued a special use permit 

(“1992 Special Use Permit”) that provided authorization in one permit for the District’s sewer lines 

going through National Forest System lands. 

E. The Forest Service initiated a currently ongoing response action to address 

the release of hazardous substances at the Site (“Response Action”). An alternative for the cleanup 

and remediation of the Site has not yet been selected. One of the issues being evaluated in the Site 

investigation is whether or not the Site portion of the District’s sewer line must be relocated. 

F. On January 14, 2005, the District filed its Fourth-Party Complaint for 

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Other Remedies Under Administrative Procedure Act against 

the Government. The Fourth-Party Complaint arises out issues concerning the 1992 Special Use 

Permit. 

G. On May 17, 2005, the District filed its Motion for Order to Prepare the 

Administrative Record for the Fourth Party Action. 

H. On June 3, 2005, the Government filed its Opposition to Fourth Party 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Prepare Administrative Record. 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 269 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 5
H

A

T

C

H

&

P

A

R

E

N

T, A

L

A

W

C

O

R

P

O

R

A

TIO

N

21 EAST CARRILLO STREET

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

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 - 

I. On June 7, 2005, the Government filed its Motion to Dismiss [the Fourth 

Party Complaint]; Or in the Alternative, for Partial or Complete Summary Judgment. 

J. On July 21, 2005, issued its order granting the District’s Motion for Order to 

Prepare the Administrative Record and further ordering the Government to prepare the 

administrative record of the proceedings in this matter “in advance of any ruling on the 

Government’s Motion to Dismiss.” (July 21, 2005 Order, 3:19-25.) The Court held that “a 

dispositive motion in the instant matter not based on substantive review of the underlying 

administrative record would be improper in any event.” (July 21, 2005 Order, 3:19-25.) 

K. On or about August 17, 2005, the Government filed two documents in 

response to the Court’s July 21, 2005 order to prepare an administrative record: “Notice of Filing 

Administrative Record for 1992 Special Use Permit Amendment No. 2” and the “Notice of Filing 

Relevant Documents for May 5, 2003 Letter in Response to Court Order Vol. 1.” The Government 

filed an amended version of these documents on August 18, 2005. (See Government’s Amended

Notice of Filing Administrative Record For 1992 Special Use Permit Amendment No. 2 and 

Amended Notice of Filing Relevant Documents for May 5, 2003 Letter In Response To Court Order 

Vol. 1.) 

L. On September 16, 2005, the District filed its Motion to Strike Relevant 

Documents filed by Fourth-Party Defendants. 

M. On September 19, 2005, the District filed its Motion to Supplement FourthParty Defendants’ Administrative Record. 

N. Pursuant to a Stipulation to Continue Hearing re Fourth-Party Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Strike Relevant Documents and a Stipulation to Continue Hearing re Fourth Party 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Administrative Record and orders entered thereon by this Court, 

the hearings on the District’s pending Motion to Strike and Motion to Supplement are currently 

scheduled for February 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

O. Pursuant to a Stipulation to Continue Hearing re Fourth-Party Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss and order entered thereon by this Court, the hearing on the Government’s 

pending Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for March 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 269 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 5
H

A

T

C

H

&

P

A

R

E

N

T, A

L

A

W

C

O

R

P

O

R

A

TIO

N

21 EAST CARRILLO STREET

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

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 - 

P. The District and the Government agree that it would be in both of their best 

interests to delay the determination of the issues raised in the pending Government’s Motion to 

Dismiss until after the selection of the alternative in the Response Action. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the District, on the one 

hand, and the United States and the Forest Service, on the other hand, as follows: 

1. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss, as referenced above, shall be taken off 

calendar without prejudice and subject to 60-day notice, providing that the Government’s Motion to 

Dismiss shall not be heard and determined before the District’s pending Motion to Strike and 

Motion to Supplement. 

2. The District’s pending Motion to Strike and Motion to Supplement, as 

referenced above, shall be taken off calendar without prejudice and subject to a 30-day notice, 

providing that these motions shall be heard and determined before the Government’s Motion to 

Dismiss is heard and determined. 

DATED: January _____, 2006 HATCH & PARENT 

STEVEN L. HOCH 

GARY M. KVISTAD 

By:/s/ Robin L. Lewis 

ROBIN L. LEWIS 

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant/FourthParty Plaintiff SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC 

UTILITY DISTRICT 

DATED: January _____, 2006 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT, UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY 

By:/s/ Edmund F. Brennan 

Edmund F. Brennan 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Fourth-Party Defendant 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 269 Filed 01/25/06 Page 4 of 5
H

A

T

C

H

&

P

A

R

E

N

T, A

L

A

W

C

O

R

P

O

R

A

TIO

N

21 EAST CARRILLO STREET

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

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

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: January 24, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 269 Filed 01/25/06 Page 5 of 5