Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01520-17/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;

and CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE,

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

______________________________

AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS.

----oo0oo----

Counsel for Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff El Dorado

County (“El Dorado”), through this Motion, asks the Court to

schedule a Mandatory Settlement Conference between El Dorado

County and Plaintiff, the United States of America. 

///

///

///

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 336 Filed 11/21/08 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

Despite the fact that two Special Masters, Catherine Yanni and

Michael Lewis, have been appointed to mediate this case and while

several mediation sessions have already occurred, El Dorado

County nonetheless believes that mediation efforts between it and

the United States have stalled and that the Court should now

exercise its discretion under Local Rule 16-270(a) in setting up

a judicially-supervised settlement conference before the assigned

Magistrate Judge, Gregory G. Hollows, upon a showing of good

cause.

The United States, on the other hand, points out that since

the last mediation session in this case, it sent a revised

settlement proposal to El Dorado County based on the Government’s

updated cleanup costs. According to the Government, it has yet

to receive a response to that new proposal. While the Government

believes it would be appropriate to resume mediation efforts

after it receives a response, it maintains that any effort to do

so beforehand would be premature, and further alleges that there

is no reason why the assigned mediators should not preside over

any renewed settlement discussions.

El Dorado does not dispute the Government’s contention that

it has not responded to Plaintiff’s most recent settlement

proposal, but nonetheless expresses its belief that efforts to

resolve the case have reached an impasse.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 336 Filed 11/21/08 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

 Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the 1

Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

3

Under the circumstances and given the expertise the

mediators have already gained concerning the myriad details of

this unquestionably complicated case, the Court believes that

settlement efforts are still best channeled through the appointed

mediators. El Dorado’s Motion is consequently DENIED, without 1

prejudice to renewing its request should subsequent developments

in the case so indicate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2008

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-01520-MCE-DAD Document 336 Filed 11/21/08 Page 3 of 3