Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00048/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

FIREBAUGH CANAL WATER DISTRICT,

et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendants.

________________________________

SUMNER PECK RANCH, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, et all, 

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:88-cv-00634 OWW DLB

1:91-cv-00048 OWW DLB

1:92-cv-05554 OWW

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC.

949) AND SETTING DEADLINE

FOR SETTLEMENT.

Firebaugh Canal Water District (“Firebaugh”) and Central

California Irrigation District’s (“CCID”) move for

reconsideration of a portion of the November 19, 2004 order on

Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended

Complaint. Doc. 949, filed Dec. 1, 2004. Movants object to a

single sentence in the a summary section of the November 19, 2004

order entitled “Status of the Claims in this Case”: 

Case 1:91-cv-00048-LJO-DLB Document 952 Filed 04/19/05 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

Finally, according to representations made by the

parties during oral argument on November 1, 2004, the

Sixth Claim for declaratory relief as to the District

Defendants has been mooted by a settlement

agreement....

Doc. 948, at 42 (emphasis added). Apparently, although

negotiations were ongoing at the time of oral argument on the

motion to dismiss, no settlement has been achieved between

Plaintiffs and the District Defendants. Firebaugh and CCID

request that the sentence be revised to read: 

Finally, according to representations made by the

parties during oral argument on November 1, 2004, the

Sixth Claim for declaratory relief as to the District

Defendants may be mooted by a settlement agreement...

Doc. 949 at 2 (emphasis added). The District Defendants do not

explicitly object to this revision, although they maintain that

it is unnecessary. Doc. 950 at 3, filed Dec. 9, 2004. Because

this suggested edit more accurately reflects the status of

ongoing settlement negotiations, Firebaugh & CCID’s motion for

reconsideration is GRANTED only as to this requested change. 

Firebaugh and CCID also request inclusion of the following

language in the revised opinion: 

As the Court has previously found the District

Defendants to be indispensable parties pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 19, Plaintiffs

and District Defendants shall submit a settlement

agreement for the Court’s approval within 90 days, or

report on the status of their settlement discussions.

Doc. 949 at 2. The District Defendants specifically object to

the language concerning indispensable parties and insist that

they are not indispensable parties to the remaining claim in the

case brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”),

because the APA affords them a very limited remedy. There is no

need at this time to address whether Firebaugh and CCID remain

Case 1:91-cv-00048-LJO-DLB Document 952 Filed 04/19/05 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

indispensable parties under the APA claim. Firebaugh and CCID’s

request for reconsideration is DENIED as to the suggested

additional language.

The District Defendants do not object to the issuance of an

order setting a definite deadline for settlement. Doc. 950 at 3-

4. Accordingly, a deadline is set below. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Firebaugh & CCID’s motion

for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:

(1) A revised version of the November 19, 2004 order will

be issued, replacing the words “has been” on line 21

with the words “may be.” 

(2) The suggested language concerning indispensable parties

will not be included in the revised November 19, 2004

order.

In addition, the parties are ORDERED to submit a settlement

agreement within 60 days, or report to the Court on the status of

their settlement discussions. 

SO ORDERED. 

 /S/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:91-cv-00048-LJO-DLB Document 952 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 3