Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01635/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01635-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1251 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

---

1

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, an IRC 

Section 501(c)(3), non-profit, public 

benefit Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ESCONDIDO,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. No. 7)

Presently before the Court is Defendant City of Escondido’s (“Defendant”) motion 

to dismiss Plaintiff California River Watch’s (“River Watch”) First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”). (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 8.) For the reasons set forth 

more clearly below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

I. BACKGROUND

River Watch is a non-profit, public benefit corporation located in Sebastopol, 

California. (Doc. No. 3 ¶ 6.) River Watch is “dedicated to protecting, enhancing, and 

helping to restore surface water and groundwaters of California including coastal waters, 

rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands ... and educating the public concerning environmental 

issues associated with these [bodies of water].” (Id.) Members of River Watch use the 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

waters for recreational activities. (Id.) River Watch contends that its members’ use of the 

waters has been hindered as a result of Defendant’s actions. (Id.) The law giving rise to 

River Watch’s claims is the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251. (Doc. No. 3 at 

1.) The CWA regulates pollutant discharges and delineates exceptions to the prohibition 

on pollutant discharges. (Doc. No. 3 ¶ 8; 33 U.S.C. § 1311.) Furthermore, the CWA can 

issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits, which define 

the scope and limitations in which entities could discharge pollutants into United States 

waters. (Doc. No. 3 ¶ 8; 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a).)

In California, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has given the authority 

to grant NPDES permits “to a state regulatory apparatus comprised of the State Water 

Resources Control Board and several subsidiary regional water quality control boards.” 

(Doc. No. 3 ¶ 9.) In the City of Escondido, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San 

Diego Region (“RWQCB”) is responsible for issuing NPDES permits. (Id.) River Watch 

contends Defendant violated its NPDES Permit No. CA0108944 issued by the State, which 

states in pertinent part:

• Discharges of wastes in a manner or to a location which have not been 

specifically authorized and for which valid WDRs [Waste Discharge 

Requirements] are not in force is prohibited. (see Section III.B. “Discharge 

Prohibitions”).

• The bypass or overflow of untreated wastewater or wastes to surface 

waters or surface water drainage courses is prohibited, except as allowed in 

Standard Provision I.G. of Attachment D, Standard Provisions (see Section 

III.D. “Discharge Prohibitions”).

(Id. ¶ 12.) Specifically, River Watch alleges the violations stemmed from the City’s 

improper discharges in its sewer collection system and municipal storm sewer system. (Id. 

¶ 13.) River Watch claims Defendant’s violations took place over a period of five years, 

beginning on January 12, 2013 to January 12, 2018. (Id.) Moreover, River Watch believes 

there is a strong likelihood the violations will continue in the future. (Id.)

River Watch compartmentalizes the Defendant’s alleged violations into two parts: 

(1) collection system discharges caused by underground exfiltration; and (2) collection 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

system surface discharges caused by sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). (Id. ¶¶ 13(a)–(b).)

As to the first part, River Watch claims “it is a well-established fact that exfiltration caused 

by pipeline cracks and other structural defects in a sewage collection system result in 

discharges to adjacent surface waters via underground hydrological connections.” (Id. ¶ 

13(a).) Consequently, structural defects in the Defendant’s sewage system resulted in 

discharges to Escondido Creek, Kit Carson Creek, San Elijo Lagoon and Estuary, and Lake 

Hodges – United States waters. (Id. ¶¶ 13(a), 14.) Secondly, River Watch asserts SSOs, 

which occur when untreated sewage is discharged above ground, further supports the 

claims the Defendant violated its NPDES permits and, as a result, the CWA. (Id. ¶ 13(b).)

As a result of the alleged violations, River Watch brings a citizens’ suit for 

declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to the CWA. 33 U.S.C. § 1251. However, before 

a suit can be initiated, the CWA requires plaintiffs to provide the defendant with a 60-day 

notice of intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A).

River Watch provided Defendant with the notice on January 12, 2018 and filed this 

suit on July 24, 2018. (Doc. No. 3 at 15, 17.) Details regarding each notice requirement 

will be discussed herein. Defendant brings its motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) River 

Watch’s 60-day notice is insufficient; and (2) River Watch’s FAC fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 4, 8.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s 

complaint and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 

729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for (1) lack 

of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.” 

SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, a complaint will survive a 

motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Even more, “[w]hile a 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual 

allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ 

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. “[F]actual allegations must be enough to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.

In making this determination, a court reviews the contents of the complaint, 

accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of 

the nonmoving party. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 

F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need 

not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). It is 

also improper for a court to assume “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not 

alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 

459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). Moreover, “a court need not accept as true unreasonable 

inferences, unwarranted deductions of fact, or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form 

of factual allegations.” Summit Technology, Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments Co., 

Inc., 922 F. Supp. 299, 304 (citing Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th 

Cir. 1981) cert denied, 454 U.S. 1031 (1981)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. River Watch’s Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit Under the CWA

Defendant’s motion hinges upon the deficiency of River Watch’s Notice. 

Accordingly, the Court finds it instructive to provide pertinent parts of the Notice here.

a. Specific Standard, Limitation, or Order Alleged to Have Been Violated

River Watch contends the order being violated is NPDES Permit 

No. CA0108944, SWRCB Order No. R9-2015-0026. (Doc. No. 

3 at 18.)

b. Activity Alleged to Constitute a Violation

I. Sanitary Sewer Overflows Occurrence

A review of the CIWQS Spill Public Report – Summary Page 

identifies the “Total Number of SSO locations” as 44, with 

329,470 “Total Vol. of SSOs (gal)” discharged into the 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

environment. Included in the reported SSOs are the following 

incidents:

• October 15, 2017 (Event ID # 840808) – an SSO estimated 

at 59,331 gallons occurred at Sears Automotive Air Vac as a 

result of an air relief valve/blow-off valve failure which caused 

54,831 gallons of sewage to discharge into Kit Carson Creek. Of 

the estimated amount, 4,500 gallons of sewage were recovered.

• June 20, 2015 (Event ID # 815978) – an SSO estimated at 

50 gallons occurred at 2415 Eucalyptus caused by a pipe 

structural problem and/or failure. None of the sewage was 

recovered. All 50 gallons discharged into Lake Hodges via a 

storm channel.

• March 29, 2013 (Event ID # 793042) – an SSO estimated 

at 300 gallons occurred at 1487 Industrial Avenue as a result of 

a water main failure. 250 gallons were reported as recovered and 

50 gallons of sewage reached Escondido Creek via a storm drain.

(Id. at 19.)

II. Inadequate Reporting of Discharges

River Watch’s expert. . .believes that a careful reading of the time 

when the SSO began, the time the City received notification of 

the SSO, the time of its response, and the time at which the SSO 

ended, too often appear as unlikely estimations. For example:

• February 27, 2016 (Event ID # 822320) – the spill start 

time and agency notification time are both reported as 07:53 a.m. 

The operator arrival time and spill end time are not reported. The 

estimated volume of the spill is reported as 6,790 gallons, all of 

which is reported as being recovered.

• December 16, 2015 (Event ID # 8202260) – the spill start 

time and agency notification time are both reported as 10:30 a.m. 

The operator arrival time and estimated spill end time are not 

reported. The estimated total spill volume is estimated at 1,125. 

Out of the total spill volume, 1,000 gallons are reported as being 

recovered and 1,125 gallons are reported as reaching land.

• March 13, 2015 (Event ID # 813886) – the spill start time 

is reported as 4:00 p.m. and agency notification time is reported 

as 4:10 p.m. The operator arrival time and estimated spill end 

time are not reported. The total spill volume is reported as 300 

gallons, 200 gallons of which are reported as being recovered. 

The remaining 100 gallons are not reported.

(Id. at 20.)

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

III. Failure to Mitigate Impacts

River Watch contends the City fails to adequately mitigate the 

impacts of SSOs. The City is a permittee under the Statewide 

General Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water 

Discharge Requirements Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, and 

Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R-9-2007-0005 ...

governing the operation of sanitary sewer systems. The two 

Waste Discharge Requirements Orders require the city to take all 

feasible steps, and perform necessary remedial actions following 

the occurrence of an SSO, including limiting the volume of waste 

discharged, terminating the discharge, and recovering as much of 

the wastewater as possible.

(Id. at 20–21.)

c. Person or Persons Responsible for the Alleged Violation

The entity responsible for the alleged violations identified in this 

Notice is the City of Escondido, as owner and operator of the 

Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility and its associated 

sewer collection system, as well as those of the City’s employees 

responsible for compliance for the CWA and with any applicable 

state and federal regulations and permits.

(Id. at 23–24.)

d. Location of the Alleged Violation

The City’s sewer collection system includes the wastewater 

collection system and the Escondido Land Outfall pipeline 

carrying effluent from the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery 

Facility located at 1521 South Hale Avenue to the San Elijo 

Ocean Outfall ... All of the water bodes affected by the City’s 

SSOs are listed on the California Water Boards as CWA Section 

303(d) impaired bodies of water. San Elijo Lagoon and estuary 

is impaired for eutrophic, indicator bacteria and 

sedimentation/siltation. Kit Carson Creek is impaired for 

pentracholorophenol (PCP) and Total Dissolved Solids. Hodges 

Lake and Reservoir is impaired for color, manganese, mercury, 

nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity and pH.

(Id. at 24.)

e. Date or Dates of Such Violation

The range of dates covered by this Notice is January 12, 2013 

through January 12, 2018. This Notice also includes all 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

violations of the CWA by the City which occur during and after 

this Notice period up to and including the time of trial.

(Id. at 25.)

f. Full Name, Address, and Telephone Number of the Person Giving 

Notice

The entity giving notice is California River Watch ... Its 

headquarters and main office are located in Sebastopol. Its 

mailing address is 290 South Main Street, #817, Sebastopol, CA 

95472.

(Id.)

B. Sufficiency of River Watch’s Notice

A citizen’s suit for violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) can be brought for 

declaratory of injunctive relief. 33 U.S.C. § 1251. Pursuant to the CWA, plaintiffs must 

provide defendants with a 60-day notice of intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A). 

As mentioned above, federal regulations provide that the notice must contain the following 

details: (1) the specific standard, limitation, or order alleged to have been violated; (2) the 

activity alleged to constitute a violation; (3) the person or persons responsible for the 

alleged violation; (4) the location of the alleged violation; (5) the date or dates of such 

violation; and (6) the full name, address, telephone number of the person giving notice. 40 

C.F.R. § 135.3(a).

The Court will not analyze at length the issue of whether River Watch complied with 

the 60-day notice requirement. River Watch sent Defendant the Notice on January 12, 2018 

and did not file suit in this Court until July 24, 2018. (Doc. No. 3 at 15, 17.) Accordingly, 

the 60-day notice requirement was met.

Defendant compartmentalizes its challenge to River Watch’s Notice into three parts: 

(1) underground exfiltration; (2) failure to comply with effluent limitations; and (3) 

unidentified sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). (Doc. No. 7-1 at 5–7.) Within each section, 

Defendant claims River Watch failed to provide “(1) the specific activity of the City which 

resulted in the alleged violations, (2) the location of the alleged violations, or (3) the date 

or dates of such alleged violations.” (Id.) The Court will first address Defendant’s 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

contentions regarding underground exfiltration and failure to comply with effluent 

limitations.

1. Allegations of Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Here, Defendant’s contentions hinge on the time period in which River Watch 

claims sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) occurred. (Doc. No. 7 at 6.) The Ninth Circuit has 

held where allegations of unlawful discharge provide a range of dates, notice is still 

sufficient. San Francisco Baykeeper v. Tosco, 309 F.3d 1153, 1158–59 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiffs are not required to list every single violation with their respective dates, 

especially when defendants are in a better position to ascertain the dates of their own 

misconduct. Id.; Friends of Frederick Seig Grove #94 v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency, 124 

F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1169 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (Friends of Frederick Seig Grove). As a matter 

of policy, courts have held:

[R]equiring a plaintiff to specifically list all of the alleged 

violations and the precise dates of each violation in a notice letter 

is inconsistent with the balance Congress sought to strike 

between encouraging citizen enforcement of environmental 

regulations and avoiding burdening the federal courts with a 

flood of citizen suits. . . .[P]lacing such a burden on prospective 

plaintiffs would excessively undermine citizen suits and 

discourage alleged violators from complying with the CWA or 

entering into settlement discussions with plaintiffs.

Friends of Frederick Seig Grove, 124 F. Supp. 2d at 1169. As stated herein, a notice is 

sufficient when it provides defendants enough detail to identify the violations and to 

subsequently remedy the violations. San Francisco Baykeeper, 791 F. Supp. 2d at 753.

Here, River Watch’s Notice claims “[a] review of [California Integrated Water 

Quality System] Spill Public Report – Summary Page identifies the ‘Total Number of SSO 

locations’ as 44.” (Doc. No. 3 at 19.) Furthermore, the Court has delineated in detail above, 

the SSO incidents dated October 15, 2017; June 20, 2015; and March 29, 2013. (Id.) The 

Court finds it instructive that these three incidents alone occurred in a period spanning four 

years. Moreover, River Watch’s review of the Spill Public Report demonstrated 44 SSOs, 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

which presumably would have occurred within the five-year period alleged. Accordingly, 

the Court is reluctant to support the Defendant’s argument that the five-year period River 

Watch alleges is too broad. The Court finds River Watch provided Defendant with enough 

notice of alleged violations and with ample detail to bring itself into compliance with the 

CWA.

Thus, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of violations of 

the CWA with respect to sanitary sewer overflows.

2. Allegations of Underground Exfiltration and Failure to Comply with Effluent 

Limitations 

It is well-settled in the Ninth Circuit that the CWA’s notice regulation “does not 

require that plaintiffs ‘list every specific aspect or detail of every alleged violation.’” San 

Francisco Baykeeper v. W. Bay Sanitary Dist., 791 F. Supp. 2d 719, 753 (N.D. Cal. 2011) 

(citing Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of the Env’t v. Henry Bosma Dairy, 305 F.3d 943, 951 

(9th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiffs are not required to list every single violation with their 

respective dates, especially when defendants are in a better position to ascertain the dates 

of their own misconduct. San Francisco Baykeeper, 309 F.3d at 1158–59; Friends of 

Frederick Seig Grove, 124 F. Supp. 2d at 1169. However, plaintiffs must not provide 

defendants with a notice so deficient of detail that defendants would not be able to identify 

alleged violations and, subsequently, remedy the violations. San Francisco Baykeeper, 791 

F. Supp. 2d at 753. 

Here, Defendants contend River Watch’s Notice regarding the allegations of 

underground exfiltration and effluent limitations are deficient. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 5, 7.)

Taking into consideration the six notice requirements mentioned herein, the Court believes

River Watch has provided sufficient notice as to these two allegations. Plaintiff identifies 

these two allegations as supporting concerns. (Doc. No. 8 at 12.) River Watch has provided 

sufficient information for Defendants to determine the nature, location and exact dates of 

the alleged discharges via exfiltration. In regard to the effluent limitations, River Watch 

has alleged that Defendants provide no evidence in its electronically filed self-monitoring

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

reports that it complies with the receiving water limitations in its permit. (Doc. No. 8 at 

15.) River Watch has alleged that “[r]eceiving water limitations are based on water quality 

objectives contained in the RWQCB Basin Plan and the California Ocean Plan, and are 

incorporated by reference into NPDES Permit No. CA 0108944.” (Doc. No. 3 at 21.) This 

again is sufficient notice for Defendants to determine the violations. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims of 

violations of the CWA with respect to underground exfiltration and effluent limitations.

C. Whether River Watch’s FAC States a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted 

Defendant contends River Watch’s FAC merely provides conclusory allegations and 

does not give factual support for its CWA claims. (Doc. No. 7-1 at 8.) To reiterate, a 

complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it contains “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Furthermore, factual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.

Here, River Watch’s FAC provides specific details regarding the Defendant’s 

NPDES permits, “Event IDs” of twenty-six violations between 2013 through 2018, and 

details regarding three of those violations. (Doc. No. 3 at 5–7.) Accordingly, the Court 

finds River Watch has met the threshold requirements in Twombly and Iqbal to provide 

enough facts to state a claim for relief. Notwithstanding, the Court is of the opinion that 

River Watch’s relief should be limited to the violations of sanitary sewer overflows.

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss River Watch’s claim 

for injunctive relief, civil penalties, and declaratory relief.

D. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Pursuant to Rule 201, a court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts “not 

subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Facts are indisputable, and thus 

subject to judicial notice, only if they are either “generally known” under Rule 201(b)(1) 

or “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy 

cannot be reasonably questioned” under Rule 201(b)(2). Id. If the parties dispute the facts 

contained in the documents, “the Court takes judicial notice only of the statements 

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 11
11

3:18-CV-01635-AJB-JMA

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

contained,” but not for the truth of the matters asserted. Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., 282 F.

Supp. 3d 1115, 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (citations omitted); see also City of Roseville 

Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Sterling Fin. Corp., 963 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1108 (E.D. Wash. 

2013), aff’d, 691 F. App’x 393 (9th Cir. 2017) (court found it unnecessary to consider the 

truthfulness of judicially noticeable documents in a defendant’s motion to dismiss).

Further, evidence of “conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations” is 

inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). 

Defendant’s motion requests judicial notice of three communications between the 

parties and, more specifically, regarding more details about River Watch’s January 12, 

2018 Notice. (Doc. Nos. 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 9 at 8.) River Watch contends it is unclear what 

adjudicative facts for which Defendant is seeking judicial notice. (Doc. No. 8 at 15.) The 

Court agrees. The three communications between the parties are in dispute. These 

communications are not generally known, nor can the Court make an accurate and ready 

determination as to the accuracy. Further, if these communications were in fact used as an 

offer of compromise, these are inadmissible. As such, the Court finds the contents of the 

letters to contain facts subject to reasonable dispute. Thus, the Court DENIES

Defendant’s request for judicial notice.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

(Doc. No. 7.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01635-AJB-LL Document 14 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 11