Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00121/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00121-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

29

30

31

Christopher Sproul (State Bar No. 126398)

Jodene Isaacs (State Bar No. 226895)

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES

5135 Anza Street

San Francisco, California 94121

Telephone: (415) 533-3376, (510) 847-3467

Facsimile: (415) 358-5695

Email: csproul@enviroadvocates.com

Email: jisaacs@enviroadvocates.com 

William Verick (State Bar No. 140972)

Klamath Environmental Law Center

Fredric Evenson (State Bar No. 198059)

Law Offices of Fredric Evenson

424 First Street

Eureka, California 95501

Telephone: (707) 268-8900

Facsimile: (707) 268-8901

Email: wverick@igc.org, ecorights@earthlink.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY.

 Defendant.

Civil No. CV-10-00121 RS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED BY 

THE COURT 

 

 

 

*E-Filed 4/14/10*

Case 3:10-cv-00121-RS Document 28 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 1

 

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

29

30

31

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, on January 11, 2010, Plaintiff Ecological Rights Foundation filed a Complaint 

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties (“Original Complaint”) under Clean Water 

Act (“CWA”) section 505(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), seeking relief for the alleged unlawful 

discharge of pollutants from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”)’s corporation yards and 

service centers located throughout Northern California (“the Facilities”) into waters of the United 

States in violation of the CWA. See Docket Doc. No. 1;

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion for Leave to File First 

Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof (“Motion for 

Leave to File First Amended Complaint”), seeking to provide additional detail on the background 

statutory law applicable to this case and the specific way in which Plaintiff alleges that PG&E has 

violated that law at the Facilities;

WHEREAS, on February 9, 2010, Plaintiff served a Notice of Violation and Intent to File 

Suit Under the CWA and Resource Recover and Conservation Act (“RCRA”) (“Notice Letter”) on 

PG&E, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and relevant State agencies as required by the 

notice provisions of the CWA and RCRA. See CWA section 505(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b); RCRA 

section 7002(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6972 (b)(2)(A);

WHEREAS, pursuant to the notice provisions of RCRA, Plaintiff is required to wait 90 days 

from the date of service of the Notice Letter before filing suit under RCRA; 

WHEREAS, after the expiration of the 90-day notice period, Plaintiff intends to seek leave to

file a Second Amended Complaint adding additional claims under RCRA section 7002(a)(1)(B), 42 

U.S.C. § 6972 (a)(1)(B);

WHEREAS, prior to and after the filing of the Motion for Leave to File First Amended 

Complaint, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for PG&E met and conferred regarding whether PG&E 

would or would not oppose the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; 

WHEREAS, the parties agreed that PG&E would not oppose the Motion for Leave to File 

First Amended Complaint provided that Plaintiff would stipulate that PG&E would not be obligated 

Case 3:10-cv-00121-RS Document 28 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 2

 

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

29

30

31

to file an Answer or otherwise plead to the First Amended Complaint because of Plaintiff’s intention 

to soon file a Second Amended Complaint to incorporate new claims under RCRA;

NOW, THEREFORE, having reached an agreement, the parties do hereby stipulate, by and 

through counsel, that: 

1. PG&E has agreed not to oppose the Motion for Leave to File First Amended 

Complaint;

2. Plaintiff has agreed that PG&E will not be obligated to file an Answer or 

otherwise plead to the First Amended Complaint;

3. PG&E’s Answer or other responsive pleading to the Second Amended 

Complaint will be due in accordance with the schedule established by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

Dated: April 13, 2010

/s/ Bradley Rochlen_________

Bradley S. Rochlen

Foley & Lardner LLP

321 North Clark Street, Ste. 2800

Chicago, IL 60654 

(312) 832.4906

brochlen@foley.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

PG&E

_________________________

Christopher Sproul

Environmental Advocates

5135 Anza Street

San Francisco, CA 94121

(415) 386-6709

csproul@enviroadvocates.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS 

FOUNDATION

Case 3:10-cv-00121-RS Document 28 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 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

29

30

31

PROPOSED ORDER

On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff Ecological Rights Foundation and Defendant Pacific Gas & 

Electric Company filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Motion for Leave to File First 

Amended Complaint (“the Stipulation”). Having considered the stipulation, and good cause 

appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS the Stipulation and orders as follows:

PG&E will not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed 

April 8, 2010. PG&E will not be obligated to file an Answer or otherwise plead to the First 

Amended Complaint. PG&E’s Answer or other responsive pleading to the Second Amended 

Complaint will be due in accordance with the schedule established by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The pending motion to dismiss is denied as moot, without prejudice to the reassertion

 of the same or similar arguments in response to the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2010 ____________________________ 

Richard Seeborg

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00121-RS Document 28 Filed 04/14/10 Page 4 of 4