Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00388-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDNA AFFHOLTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT,

et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0388 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Initial Disclosures Filing

Deadline: 8/13/07

Last Date to Add Parties:

9/13/07

Further Scheduling

Conference: 12/7/07 8:45

Ctrm. 3

Third Party Complaint

Filing Deadline: 4/1/08

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

July 13, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Marderosian, Runyon, Cercone, Lehman & Armo by Michael G.

Marderosian, Esq., Bret L. Runyon, Esq., Michael E. Lehman, 

Esq., Charles A. Leath, Esq., and Shernoff, Bidart & Darras by

Michael J. Bidart, Esq., appeared on behalf of all Plaintiffs.

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith by Joseph A. Salazar, Jr.,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Franklin County Water

District. 

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 55
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

Jacobson, Hansen, Najarian & McQuillan by Leith B. Hansen,

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant AA&A Associates.

LaMore, Brazier, Riddle & Giampaoli by Jeffrey F. Oneal,

Esq., and Greenfield-Hardy by Robert H. Greenfield, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendant Merced Irrigation District and

Merced Irrigation District No. 1. 

Allen, Proietti & Fagalde by Terry L. Allen, Esq., and

Greben & Associates by Jan Adam Greben, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Defendant County of Merced.

Myers & Mayfield by Gregory L. Myers, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Defendant City of Merced.

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth by Stephen E.

Carroll, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Ranchwood Homes

Corp.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Plaintiffs’ Summary

1. Plaintiffs in this action own or reside in homes

generally located in four areas described within the Complaint as

follows: “Beachwood Plaintiffs” who own real property and/or

resided in Merced County, generally in an area bounded by Ashby

Road to the south, Beachwood Avenue to the west, the El Capital

Canal to the east and Coronado Avenue to the north; the

“Thornton/Lopes Plaintiffs” who own real property and/or reside

or resided in Merced County, generally in an area bounded by

Thornton Road to the west, Lopes to the south, Highway 140 to the

north and Massasso Street to the east; the “Dairy plaintiffs” who

own real property and/or reside or resided on Franklin Road in

Merced County, generally between Highway 99 and the Franklin Road

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 55
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

Bridge; and the “Yosemite plaintiffs” who own real property

and/or reside or resided in Merced County, generally in an area

bounded by Kirby Road to the west, Black Rascal Creek to the

north, a raised irrigation lateral to the south and Fairfield

Channel to the east. Unless otherwise specifically described,

these Plaintiff groups shall be referred to collectively

throughout the Scheduling Conference Statement as “the

Plaintiffs.”

2. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) contains

citizen suit claims arising out of violations of the Clean Water

Act by all Defendants except Ranchwood Homes. Plaintiffs FAC

also includes related state law claims for Inverse Condemnation

under Article 1, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of

California, Negligent Maintenance, Dangerous Condition of Public

Property, Unreasonable Food Barrier and Nuisance.

3. Defendants’ Clean Water Act violations generally fall

within two categories - those involving the actions of the

defendants just before, during and after a flooding event

occurring in April of 2006, and longstanding violations of the

Clean Water Act by defendants some of which have been occurring

since the inception of the Act in 1970. These violations have

resulted in and will continue to result in the contamination of

the specific waterways at issue in this action and contamination

of the soil and water in and around Plaintiffs’ properties. The

violations of the Clean Water Act by Defendants have been both

intentional and unintentional.

4. Plaintiffs related state law claims generally fall into

two broad categories - those arising out of the biological and/or

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 3 of 55
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

chemical contamination in and around Plaintiffs’ properties

resulting from Defendants’ Clean Water Act violations and those

arising from a flooding event in April of 2006. As to the flood

related claims, Plaintiffs contend that the actions of

Defendants, including but not limited to the importation of storm

and/or drainage water from other areas of Merced County; the

placement of certain public facilities, roads, canals and/or

other structures at or near Plaintiffs’ properties which directed

flood waters onto the Plaintiffs’ property and/or prevented the

natural flow of flood waters away from Plaintiffs’ property, were

substantial factors in causing flooding to Plaintiffs’

properties.

5. Plaintiffs contend that as a result of the actions of

the Defendants, they have suffered and will continue to suffer,

personal injuries and emotional distress resulting from the

flooding event and exposure to toxins. Plaintiffs further

contend they have suffered damage to their real and personal

property including the loss of value to their real property.

6. Under the Clean Water Act claims Plaintiffs seek

declaratory and injunctive relief as well as the payment of civil

penalties and reasonable attorneys fees and costs as provided

under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). Under Plaintiffs’ related state

claims, damages are sought for personal injury, personal property

damage, real property loss (including stigma damages) and special

damages, including wage loss, loss of past and future income,

loss of rental income, business interruption losses, medical and

related expenses, medical monitoring costs, cleanup costs and

relocation expenses as well as recovery of attorneys fees and

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 4 of 55
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

5

costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1036.

Defendants’ Summary

1. Defendant FCWD is a public entity formed for the

purpose of operating a wastewater collection and treatment

facility. It is located north of the City of Merced and serves

numerous households in the Beachwood area. It operates in

compliance with a WDR Order issued by the California Regional

Water Control Board. FCWD contends that to the extent there may

be bacteria in and/or around Plaintiffs’ property, it is

naturally occurring and its mere presence is not the result of

some act of omission by FCWD.

2. It is the contention of the City of Merced, MID and

MIDD1 that each operates its waste water treatment facility and

its collection system in accordance with its NPDES permit and

that in the event that it violates the permit, it reports the

matter and abides by corrections and mitigation as dictated by

the RWQCB.

3. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

and MIDD1 that its handling of the flood which occurred in April

2006, was reasonable and did not result in any damage to any of

the Plaintiffs caused by either flood waters or alleged

contamination from those waters.

4. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, AA&A

Associates, Inc., MID and MIDD1 that they have not caused any

damage to any of the Plaintiffs for any alleged contamination of

ground water or surface water at or near their residences or

businesses.

5. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 5 of 55
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

6

and MIDD1 that there is nothing which it has done which would

lead to a “taking” as defined by Article 1, Section 19 of the

Constitution of the State of California.

6. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, AA&A

Associates, Inc., MID and MIDD1 that the Plaintiffs have not

suffered any damages as a result of any contamination and that

they have failed to mitigate damages sustained by them as a

result of flooding which occurred in April, 2006.

7. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, AA&A

Associates, Inc., MID and MIDD1 that the Plaintiffs who suffered

damage as the result of flooding that occurred in April, 2006,

knew or should have known of the likelihood of such flooding and,

nonetheless, accepted the risk associated with such flooding.

8. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, AA&A

Associates, Inc., MID and MIDD1 that the Plaintiffs and each of

them failed to mitigate any damages that they claim to have

suffered.

9. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, AA&A

Associates, Inc., MID and MIDD1 that the actions of the

Plaintiffs and each of them contributed to any damages suffered

by them.

10. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

and MIDD1 that it is immune from prosecution of all state claims

pursuant to Government Code §§ 835.4, 820.2, 830.6 and 831.2. 

11. It is the contention of City of Merced, FCWD, MID and

MIDD1 that the Plaintiffs and each of them are barred by the

statute of limitations as set forth in the California Code of

Civil Procedure § 338(j) and 28 U.S.C. § 2462.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 6 of 55
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

7

12. It is the contention of AA&A Associates, Inc., that the

Plaintiffs and each of them are barred by the statute of

limitations as set forth in the California Code of Civil

Procedure §§ 338(a)(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 2462.

13. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

and MIDD1 that some of the Plaintiffs’ actions are barred as a

result of their failure to file the appropriate claim as required

by Government Code §§ 900 and 901, et seq.

14. It is the contention of the AA&A Associates, Inc., that

the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring an action under the

Clean Water Act.

15. It is the contention of AA&A Associates, Inc., that

some of the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring suit, to the

extent that they have assigned their claims to their insurers.

16. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

and MIDD1 that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring an

action under the Clean Water Act.

17. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

and MIDD1 that some of the Plaintiffs have entered into a flood

easement which prevents them from pursuing an action for damages

which they claim to have suffered as the result of any flooding

that they may have experienced.

18. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

and MIDD1 that claims which have been brought by the Plaintiffs

for equitable relief are barred by the doctrines of laches and

unclean hands.

19. It is the contention of AA&A Associates, Inc., that

some of the claims which have been brought by the Plaintiffs for

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 7 of 55
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

8

equitable relief are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel

and moving to the nuisance.

20. It is the contention of the City of Merced, FCWD, MID

and MIDD1 that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they

have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

21. It is the contention that the City of Merced, FCWD,

AA&A Associates, Inc., MID and MIDD1, that at all times, they

acted in good faith.

22. It is the contention of AA&A Associates, Inc., that

they were not engaged in any activity in Merced requiring a PNDES

permit.

23. It is the contention of those Defendants that own or

operate a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“POTW”) that to the

extent there was any excursion from its operating permit that the

Defendants are immune or otherwise not subject to liability under

the defenses of “upset,” “interference” and/or “permit as a

shield” defenses.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Plaintiffs agree that they shall file their Amended

Complaint to add additional claimants, approximately 1,200

individuals, and to name additional parties, on or before

September 13, 2007.

2. All parties agree that the Amended Complaint can be

filed on or before September 13, 2007, without the necessity of a

motion or hearing. 

3. Plaintiffs will be amending their Complaint to include

claims based upon environmental contamination resulting from the

Baltimore Air Coil Facility in Merced. Defendants have been

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 8 of 55
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

9

previously notified of the intention to file suit via statutory

notice letters. Upon expiration of the statutory waiting

periods, Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint accordingly. 

Plaintiffs are further considering amendments related to the

filing of citizen actions for discrimination pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 as well as additional RCRA

claims against the current Defendants. All of the currently

contemplated amendments, if pursued, will be made within the next

60 days. At this juncture, there is no proposed final deadline

for amendments to the pleadings.

4. In order to efficiently handle the anticipated

mandatory cross claims and counter claims, Defendants request the

Court make the following Order:

a. In the interests of judicial economy, all present

and future cross-claims and counterclaims for which there is not

a responsive pleading on file in this Court are hereby deemed

answered and denied. In addition to the foregoing, all parties

are deemed to have pled all potential affirmative defenses in

response to all present and future cross-claims and

counterclaims.

b. All Defendant parties are deemed to have filed

cross claims or counterclaims, as the circumstance warrants,

against all other parties stating claims for: (a) contribution

under section 1432 of the California Civil Code, (b) for

equitable indemnity, and (c) for declaratory relief under the

Federal Declaratory Relief Act, 28 U.S.C.

c. If any party in Paragraph 2.b chooses to bring an

additional claim for relief other than those listed above in

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 9 of 55
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

10

paragraph 2.b, that party shall file and serve the appropriate

pleading in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Any such party may, by notice to the Court and all parties, waive

the provisions of paragraphs 2.a and 2.b.

d. To the extent Plaintiffs amend this First Amended

Complaint, the Defendants shall meet and confer regarding a

stipulated list of affirmative defenses to be added to those in

paragraph 2.b and do so by providing notice to the Court and all

parties. Barring such consensus between the Defendants, they are

ordered to amend their cross claims and/or counterclaims pursuant

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

5. The parties agree that counterclaims and cross-claims

shall be filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Third-Party Complaints shall be filed on or before

April 1, 2008. 

6. The parties further agree that Plaintiffs shall have to

and including April 1, 2008, to add parties without the necessity

of a Rule 15 motion. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

Plaintiffs’ List

1. FCWD is a public entity.

2. Merced Irrigation is a public entity.

3. Merced Irrigation District, Drainage District No.

1 is a public entity.

4. The City of Merced is a governmental entity.

5. The County of Merced is a governmental entity.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 10 of 55
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

11

6. Ranchwood Homes Corp. is a California corporation

authorized to do business and doing business in the County of

Merced.

7. AA&A Associates, Inc. is a private corporation

authorized to do business and doing business in the County of

Merced.

8. The flooding event which is referenced in

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint occurred in Merced,

California on April 4, 2006.

9. The FCWD facility does not operate under an NPDES

Permit.

10. The FCWD facility is approximately 1.5 miles

northwest of the City of Merced in Sections 14 and 23, T7S, 413E,

MDP and M.

11. WDR Order No. 89-171 is the only waste permit that

regulates the FCWD facility and its discharge of 0.6 million

gallons per day (MGD) of undisinfected treated waste water.

12. The FCWD facility includes head works in a

concrete lined aeration basin with two aerators.

13. Black Rascal Creek is a tributary to Bear Creek,

which is a tributary to the San Joaquin River, all waters of the

United States.

14. The El Capital Canal conveys irrigation water from

the Merced River south of the FCWD facility with both waters

flowing into Bear Creek.

15. Less than a half a mile downstream of the

confluence between the El Capital Canal and Bear Creek is Crocker

Dam.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 11 of 55
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

12

16. The MID was established to provide irrigation

water to the farms in the central portion of the San Joaquin

Valley located around the City of Merced.

17. The MID was organized under the California Water

Code in 1919.

18. The MID is comprised of five major operational

enterprises, water utility, parks and recreation, hydroelectric

project, electric services and storm drainage.

19. The MID distributes water through an 800 plus mile

system of dirt and concrete lined channels and pipelines.

20. The MID owns, operates and maintains five

recreational areas adjacent to Exchequer and McSwain Dams.

21. The Lake McSwain recreation area is located

adjacent to Lake McSwain.

22. McClure Point, Barrett Cove, Horseshoe Bend and

Bagby recreation areas are all located adjacent to Lake McClure.

23. A total of six boat launch facilities are

available in the recreational system.

24. Over 600 camp sites are available to the public

over a year round basis.

25. The MID owns, operates and maintains the new

Exchequer dams, reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities.

26. The MID is authorized to act as an electric

utility under the California Water Code.

27. The MID has owned and operated hydroelectric

generating facilities on the Merced River since 1927.

28. Merced County’s population is approximately

250,000 people.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 12 of 55
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

13

Defendants’ List

29. That on or about April, 2006, the County of Merced

and its watershed experienced torrential rainfall.

30. The parties have not had sufficient time to

determine whether all facts asserted by Plaintiffs to be

uncontested are in fact uncontested. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether all illegal discharges and activities

complained of in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint occurred in

waterways which are waters of the United States or the State of

California.

2. Whether the EPA and the State of California have

formerly concluded that discharges by Defendants of the

complained of in previous notices served upon Defendants are

prohibited by law. 

3. Whether the affected waterways detailed in

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and in the notices served

upon Defendants are navigable waters of the United States within

the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).

4. Whether Defendants FCWD, AA&A Associates, Inc.,

Merced Irrigation District, Merced Irrigation District, Drainage

District No. 1, the County of Merced or the City of Merced have

violated and continue to violate the Clean Water Act by

violations of the terms of their NPDES Permits, if one has been

issued to the entity.

5. Whether each of the violations by Defendant FCWD,

AA&A Associates, Inc., Merced Irrigation District, Merced

Irrigation District, Drainage District No. 1, the County of

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 13 of 55
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

14

Merced or the City of Merced in excess of their NPDES Permits

constitute separate actionable violations of the Clean Water Act.

6. Whether Defendants FCWD, AA&A Associates, Inc.,

Merced Irrigation District, Merced Irrigation District, Drainage

District No. 1, the County of Merced or the City of Merced will

continue to violate the limits in terms of the NPDES Permits, as

well as state and federal standards with respect to the

discharges and releases as identified in notices to Defendants,

unless appropriate civil penalties and equitable relief is

granted.

7. Whether the FCWD owns, maintains and/or operates a

waste water treatment, refuse and disposal facility that served

the adjacent community in areas around Plaintiffs’ residences.

8. Whether the FCWD facility demonstrates severe

problems with the collection system, in that water, both surface

and groundwater drainage is to Black Rascal Creek which parallels

the southbound drain of the FCWD facility.

9. Whether the water quality control plan for the San 

Joaquin River basin contains water quality objectives for all

waters of the basin and is being violated as sewage from the FCWD

facility leaks or is otherwise discharged from the facility

through leaking collection pipes, hydrologically connected ponds

or inconsistent maintenance schedule.

10. Whether the FCWD has chronic pollution problems

associated with, among other things, its antiquated facility and

collection system, undersized capacity, old equipment and

inconsistent maintenance schedule.

11. Whether the FCWD has illegally released treated

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 14 of 55
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

15

sewage directly to adjacent waters of the United States, with the

most recent event occurring in April or May of 2006.

12. Whether in April of 2006, a failure of a levee on

the channelized portion of Black Rascal Creek caused flooding

within the service area and inundated portions of the sewage

collective system causing the influent flow to spike. To reduce

water levels in the disposal ponds from April 14 to May 2, 2006,

FCWD illegally discharged treated sewage to Black Rascal Canal.

13. Whether FCWD claimed the discharge was necessary

to ensure the ponds were at a level that would allow adequate

capacity for the coming year and to avoid future discharges to

Black Rascal Creek. Records indicate that these illegal

discharges could have been avoided.

14. Whether due to its proximity to a hydrological

connection with adjacent waters, the ponds of the FCWD facility

discharged directly to the waters of the United States.

15. Whether pollutants deposited by the FCWD migrate

to the waters of the United States.

16. Whether FCWD has admitted that it will continue to

have problems with illegal discharges in the future and that the

likelihood of increases each year are due to flooding,

urbanization, loss of adjacent wetlands, loss of tributaries and

other hydrological factors.

17. Whether FCWD admits that direct discharges such as

those that have occurred in 2006 were violations of the Clean

Water Act.

18. Whether FCWD’s waste water collection system is a

source of unpermitted and unregulated pollution.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 15 of 55
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

16

19. Whether the FCWD’s waste water collection system

suffers frequent sewer overflows which enter storm drains,

ditches, creeks and other waters of the United States.

20. Whether the FCWD facility has poor documentation

concerning collection system overflow events and maintenance.

21. Whether due to FCWD’s collection system’s poor

condition, it discharges subsurface pollutants each and every day

contributing to the general overall pollutants entering the

ground and groundwater from their ponds.

22. Whether FCWD has no NPDES permit allowing such

discharges.

23. Whether discharges by the Merced Irrigation

District are a contributing factor to the illegal problems of the

discharges by the FCWD.

24. Whether the Clean Water Act violations of the FCWD

affect the health and enjoyment of victims who reside, work and

recreate in the affected area.

25. Whether the violations of FCWD have resulted in

property loss to Plaintiffs, including real and personal

property.

26. Whether the Merced Irrigation District (MID) and

Merced Irrigation Drainage District No. 1 (MIDD1) had been in

continuous operation prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act

and have been violating the Act since it was passed.

27. Whether in 2005, various recreational locations

owned, operated or maintained by the MID had a combined 658,575

visitor days. Human waste, hydrocarbon pollutants, solvents,

pesticides, detergents and sediment are all pollutants discharged

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 16 of 55
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

17

from the lakes and the MID recreational areas to other waters of

the United States, including Canal Creek, El Capital Canal and

Black Rascal Creek which are downstream from the lakes.

28. Whether the MID intentionally discharges from

these lakes and reservoirs to other waters. By these acts, the

MID is discharging pollutants to the waters of the United States.

29. Whether changes in the movement, flow or

circulation of any navigable water or groundwater, including

changes caused by the construction of dams, levees, channels,

causeways or flow diversion facilities create waste products

which are “added” to the water by tangential processes in

generating electricity. The MID has no NPDES permit for these

types of discharges occurring from one water to another water of

the United States.

30. Whether for more than 40 years, the MID has

utilized pesticides in its 800 plus miles of canals, laterals and

pipelines.

31. Whether the MID has ever had an NPDES permit for

discharges related to pesticide use prior to the adoption of

statewide general NPDES permit for the discharge of pesticides

for aquatic weed and pest control in waters of the United States,

and the general NPDES permit for discharges of aquatic pesticides

to waters of the United States for vector control.

32. Whether either the MID does not have any valid

aquatic pest permit or vector permit, or the MID’s use and

application of pesticides violates the provisions of these

permits. Any NPDES permit violation is also a violation of the

Clean Water Act.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 17 of 55
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

18

33. Whether the MID has failed to implement adequate

best management practices in its use of pesticides by failing to

employ best available technology and best conventional

technology.

34. Whether the MID’s discharge of pesticide waste

creates or causes conditions of nuisance and pollution.

35. Whether the discharges cause or contribute to

long-term adverse impacts on beneficial uses.

36. Whether the MID’s discharges adversely impact

human health and the environment.

37. Whether the discharge of pesticides by the MID are

non-compliant with all FIFRA label instructions, DPR and DHS

Regulations, as well as any use permits issued by CACs.

38. Whether the MID has failed to minimize the extent

and duration of impacts caused by the discharge of pesticide

related pollutants and to demonstrate that, following completion

of resource or pest management projects, the water quality of the

receiving waters is equivalent to the pre-application state.

39. Whether receiving waters outside the treatment

area in and around plaintiffs’ residence and environment are or

are not free of toxics.

40. Whether the MID discharges are causing or

threatened to cause groundwater in the vicinity of Plaintiffs’

residence to contain waste constituents in excess of background,

groundwater quality objectives.

41. Whether the MID and MIDD1 have violated the Clean

Water Act by reason of their failure to acquire an NPDES permit

and for discharging pollutants into the waters of United States

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 18 of 55
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

19

without an NPDES permit.

42. Whether with regard to the aquatic pest permit and

vector permit, the MID and MIDD1 is in violation of those permits

each and every day, since the date they filed a notice of intent

and received coverage under these general NPDES permits. Each

and every discharge is a separate violation of the Clean Water

Act.

43. Whether violations of the MID and MIDD1 have

affected the health and enjoyment of Plaintiffs who reside, work

and recreate in the affected areas.

44. Whether the violations of the MID and MIDD1 have

resulted in real and personal property damage sustained by

Plaintiffs.

45. Whether the City of Merced owns and operates a

POTW waste water collection system which collects various

industrial and domestic waste. Due to either bypass or overflow,

wastes are discharged to surface waters. These discharges occur

both surface and subsurface.

46. Whether the City of Merced’s POTW operation also

alone or in combination with other sources, causes or threatens

to cause degradation of area groundwater by allowing polluted

waste leaving the collection system to be the positive in areas

such as the areas around Plaintiffs’ residences where the

polluted waste is discharged into groundwater.

47. Whether the City of Merced fails to report many of

these violations and fails to take corrective actions as required

by its permit and RWQCB standard provisions which have been made

part of Merced’s permit.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 19 of 55
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

20

48. Whether the bypass or overflow of waste to surface

waters by the City of Merced is prohibited.

49. Whether the City of Merced’s POTW operation alone

or in combination with other sources caused or threatens to cause

degradation of groundwater.

50. Whether the City of Merced fails to report

violations of its permit and fails to take corrective action as

required by its permit.

51. Whether the City of Merced fails to take

corrective action in order to eliminate its violations of the

Clean Water Act.

52. Whether the City of Merced’s POTW has been in

continuous operation prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act.

53. Whether much of the City of Merced’s collection

system predates the Clean Water Act.

54. Whether the City of Merced has been violating the

Clean Water Act and POTW and were required to come into

compliance with its discharge restrictions.

55. Whether bypasses or overflows from the collection

to surface water, including storm drains, ditches and other flood

control devices, violate the Clean Water Act.

56. Whether the City of Merced’s collection system

leaks subsurface to waters of the United States, including storm

drain system including ditches and other control devices.

57. Whether the City of Merced’s storm drain system

carries these pollutants to the vicinity of Plaintiffs’

residences where the pollutants discharge into groundwater or

during flooding discharge overland into the residences of

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 20 of 55
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

21

Plaintiffs.

58. Whether, when discharging subsurface, the City of

Merced’s collection system discharges these pollutants to surface

waters, including the storm drains, ditches and other flood

control devices where these pollutants are carried and

distributed to the vicinity of Plaintiffs’ residences.

59. Whether by discharging polluted water to the

vicinity of Plaintiffs’ residences, the City of Merced causes or

threatens to cause degradation of area groundwater.

60. Whether the City of Merced fails to report all

bypasses and overflows, particularly those occurring subsurface.

61. Whether the City of Merced’s waste water

collection treatment and disposal system provides sewage services

to industry and 76,000 plus residents. Numerous significant

industrial users, including users from the metal finishing and

aluminum forming categories, discharge more than a million

gallons per day of waste into the City of Merced’s leaking

collection system. Discharges include toxic metals, solvents,

polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum hydrocarbon

pesticides, endocrine disruptures, immune suppressants and

pharmaceuticals and the like. 

62. Whether the collection system for the City of

Merced facility suffers from significant inflow and infiltration

which may be caused by pipe misalignment, cracks, crown erosion,

open joints, roots and the like. Due to the proximity of the

collection system to surface waters and in particular the storm

drain system, the collection system discharges the surface and

subsurface flows to waters of the United States.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 21 of 55
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

22

63. Whether the City of Merced is aware of these

discharges and fails to take corrective actions.

64. Whether intentional or unintentional diversion of

flow from any portion of the City of Merced’s treatment facility

or collection system and transport systems, including pumping

facilities is a violation of the City of Merced’s permit and a

violation of the Clean Water Act.

65. Whether frequent sewer overflows often enter storm

drains, ditches, flood control devices, creeks and other waters

of the United States. The City of Merced has poor documentation

concerning its collection system. The City of Merced fails to

report all surface overflows and bypasses to our RWQCB.

66. Whether the City of Merced also fails to report

any subsurface discharges. All of the discharges from the City

of Merced facility are contributing to the general overall

pollutants entering ground and groundwater in and around

Plaintiffs’ residences.

67. Whether the City of Merced’s storm drains empty to

Black Rascal Creek, Canal Creek and El Capital Canal where

pollutants enter groundwater and migrate to the vicinity of

Plaintiffs’ residences.

68. Whether between January 1, 2002, and January 1,

2007, the City of Merced had 240 violations due to the

intentional or unintentional diversion of flow from the

collection and transport systems, including pumping facilities

via surface flow to a water of the United States, including storm

drains, ditches and flood control devices.

69. Whether between January 1, 2002, and January 1,

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 22 of 55
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

23

2007, the City of Merced had 1,500 violations due to the

intentional or unintentional diversion of flow from the

collection and transport systems, including pumping facilities

via subsurface flow to a water of the United States, including

storm drains, ditches and flood control devices. 

70. Whether between January 1, 2002, and January 1,

2007, the City of Merced had 1,500 violations for causing or

threatening to cause degradation of area groundwater.

71. Whether between January 1, 2002, and January 1,

2007, the City of Merced had 1,500 violations for failing to

report the immediately preceding violations.

72. Whether between January 1, 2002, and January 1,

2007, the City of Merced had 1,500 violations for failure to take

corrective action in order to eliminate the violations as

enumerated above.

73. Whether pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the EPA

and State of California have formerly concluded that violations

by the City of Merced are prohibited by law.

74. Whether due directly to the violations of the City

of Merced in relationship to the Clean Water Act, Plaintiffs have

suffered loss of property value, damage to real property and

suffered personal injuries.

75. Whether large sections of Merced County discharges

pollutants to Plaintiffs’ residences and land via the County’s

municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4s). MS4s are a

conveyance or system of conveyance (including roads with drainage

systems, streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade

channels or storm drains) designed or used for collecting or

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 23 of 55
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

24

conveying storm water which is not a combined sewer and which is

not a part of a publicly owned treatment or POTW.”

76. Whether the County of Merced uses its MS4s for

local flood control and elimination of contaminated storm water,

UST cleanup discharge, polluted process water, chlorinated water

and other waste by routing polluted discharge and flood waters

away from other county lands to Plaintiffs’ residences and land.

77. Whether the County of Merced’s activities,

property and facilities convey polluted water from various

locations via the County’s MS2s to Canal Creek, El Capital Canal

and Black Rascal Creek.

78. Whether in 2006, the County of Merced discharges

caused or contributed to waters backing up and flooding

Plaintiffs’ property in and around the storm drainage area with

various pollutants, none of which the County was authorized to

discharge by any NPDES permit the County has obtained. 

79. Whether the Clean Water Act, section 402(p)

requires the County of Merced to develop and implement a program

to reduce pollutants discharged with storm water runoff to the

maximum extent practicable. This program is administered through

NPDES permits. These regulations require operators of medium and

large MS4s like the County’s to obtain NPDES storm water permits. 

The County has not obtained a Phase I municipal area storm water

discharge permit.

80. Whether starting from the first day the County was

required to obtain a Phase I NPDES permit for storm water under

the Clean Water Act, it has been in violation of the Act.

81. Whether the County of Merced discharges human

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 24 of 55
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

25

waste, hydrocarbon pollutants, solvents, pesticides, detergents,

phosphate fertilizers, toxic metals and sediment to its MS4s

leading to Canal Creek, El Capital Canal and Black Rascal Creek.

82. Whether the County of Merced intentionally

discharges from its parks, sewage collective systems,

preferential pathways, fire department, utility yards,

maintenance facilities, building and other sources via its MS4s.

83. Whether many of the County’s discharges are not

storm related, but are due to other causes such as fertilizer,

runoff during maintenance operations, street cleaning, equipment

cleaning and repair, pest control, weed control, water and sewage

releases, construction, road repair, building maintenance,

gardening and land management.

84. Whether by the above acts, the County of Merced is

discharging pollutants to the waters of the United States, and

the County has no NPDES permit covering these types of

discharges.

85. Whether for more than 60 years, the County of

Merced has utilized pesticides, including aquatic herbicides to

control weeds, mosquitos and other pests in MS4s and waters of

the United States.

86. Whether in addition to the pesticides themselves,

pesticide products contain other chemicals such as surfactants

solvents, metals and the like which all contribute to the

pollutants being added to the target waters.

87. Whether the County of Merced has ever had an NPDES

permit for these discharges prior to the adoption of the

statewide general NPDES permit for discharge of aquatic

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 25 of 55
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

26

pesticides for aquatic weed and pest control in waters of the

United States (Aquatic Pest Permit) and the general NPDES permit

for discharges of aquatic pesticides to surface water of the

United States for vector control (Vector Permit).

88. Whether either the County does not have a

currently valid aquatic pest permit or vector permit, or the

County’s use and application of pesticides violates the

provisions of these permits.

89. Whether the County of Merced has failed to

implement adequate best management practices in its use of

pesticides by failing to employ the best available technology and

best conventional technology. 

90. Whether the County’s discharge of pesticide waste

creates or causes conditions of nuisance and pollution.

91. Whether the County’s discharges caused or

contributed to long-term adverse impacts on beneficial uses.

92. Whether the County’s discharges adversely impact

human health and the environment.

93. Whether the County’s discharge of pesticides are

non-compliant with all FIFRA label instructions, DPR and DHS

Regulations, as well as any use permits issued by CACs. The

County has failed to minimize the extent and duration of impacts

caused by the discharge of pesticide related pollutants, and to

demonstrate that following completion of resource or pest

managements, the water quality of the receiving waters is

equivalent to the pre-application state.

94. Whether there is evidence of the County’s

violations by the fact that receiving waters are not free of

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 26 of 55
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

27

toxics outside the treatment area, in and around Plaintiffs’

residences and environment.

95. Whether the County’s discharges are causing or

threatening to cause groundwater in the vicinity in Plaintiffs’

residences to contain waste constituents in excess of background,

groundwater quality and in excess of applicable water quality

objectives. These exceedences and illegal discharges threaten

the beneficial uses of surface and groundwater, pollute the land

and endanger the health and safety of the residences of the area

including Plaintiffs’.

96. Whether the contamination as identified above with

respect to FCWD, MID, County of Merced or the City of Merced

resulted from public improvements deliberately designed,

constructed, repaired and maintained for the benefit of the

public, for which these defendants exercise dominion and control,

and whether such contamination damaged the Beachwood Plaintiffs’

property resulting in a taking under Article 1, Section 19 of the

Constitution of the State of California.

97. Whether on April 4, 2006, dirt embankments along

El Capital Canal failed to function as intended and collapsed

allowing water to escape the canal and flood the Beachwood

Plaintiffs’ real and personal property.

98. Whether the County of Merced designed, constructed

and maintained Ashby Road located to the south of Beachwood

Plaintiffs’ property. Whether Ashby Road is raised above ground

level without any means by which flood water might travel

underneath or around the roadway, and as a result, Ashby Road

obstructed the flow of flood water which had escaped the channel

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 27 of 55
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

28

causing it to back up and pool on the Beachwood Plaintiffs’ real

and personal property.

99. Whether FCWD, MID, County of Merced and/or the

City of Merced converted Black Rascal Creek from a natural

waterway for use as an irrigation canal and as part of a storm

drainage system, such that the quantity of water delivered to El

Capital Canal in conjunction with rainfall on April 4, 2006, was

such to overtop and collapse the dirt embankment allowing water

to escape from the canal and flood Plaintiffs’ real and personal

property.

100. Whether FCWD, MID, County of Merced and/or the

City of Merced failed to adequately design a channel and dirt

embankments along El Capital Canal, in that it was reasonably

foreseeable that irrigation water, storm drain runoff and

rainfall either alone or in combination would exceed the capacity

of the canal and overtop so as to flood Plaintiffs’ real and

personal property.

101. Whether FCWD, MID, County of Merced and/or the

City of Merced deliberately constructed and designed dirt

embankments on the west side of the El Capital Canal at a height

substantially lower than the embankment on the opposite side or

east of the canal which resulted in flood waters flowing onto

Plaintiffs’ real and personal property, instead of with lesser

force over the property on both sides of the canal.

102. Whether the conditions described immediately

above, resulted from the use of public improvements deliberately

designed, constructed, repaired or maintained for benefit of the

public, and were substantial factors in causing the Beachwood

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 28 of 55
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

Plaintiffs’ damages and constituted a taking under Article 1,

Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of California.

103. Whether the Beachwood Plaintiffs have sustained

real and personal property damage, as a result of the

contamination and flooding events.

104. Whether the Beachwood Plaintiffs have sustained

and will continue to sustain other economic losses due to the

flooding and contamination events.

105. Whether Plaintiffs have incurred and will

continue to incur attorneys fees, appraisal fees and engineering

fees as a result of Defendants’ taking under Article 1, Section

19 of the Constitution of the State of California.

106. Whether FCWD, MID, City of Merced and/or the

County of Merced designed, constructed and maintained along Black

Rascal Creek dirt embankments which deteriorated on April 4,

2006, resulting in flooding to the Dairy Plaintiffs’ real and

personal property.

107. Whether the Dairy Plaintiffs are located

generally to the north of Black Rascal Creek, between the Creek

and Franklin Road.

108. Whether FCWD, MID, City of Merced and/or the

County of Merced deliberately designed, constructed and

maintained an embankment on the opposite side of the creek such

that it was substantially higher than the embankment adjacent to

and on the Dairy Plaintiffs’ side of the creek, resulting in

flood waters flowing with dangerous momentum on Dairy Plaintiffs’

property, instead of with lesser force over property on both

sides of the creek.

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 29 of 55
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

30

109. Whether the City of Merced and/or the County of

Merced designed, constructed and maintained Franklin Road in such

a way as it was raised above ground level without a means by

which flood water may travel underneath or around the roadway. 

As a result, Franklin Road obstructed the flow of water and

caused it to pond on Plaintiffs’ real property. The condition as

described as to Black Rascal Creek constituted public

improvements deliberately designed and were substantial factors

in causing the Dairy Plaintiffs’ injuries which constituted

taking under Article 1, Section 19 of the Constitution of the

State of California.

110. Whether the Dairy Plaintiffs have sustained real

and personal property damage, as a result of the contamination

and flooding events.

111. Whether the Dairy Plaintiffs have sustained and

will continue to sustain other economic losses due to the

flooding and contamination events.

112. Whether Plaintiffs have incurred and will

continue to incur attorneys fees, appraisal fees and engineering

fees as a result of Defendants taking under Article 1, Section 19

of the Constitution of the State of California.

113. Whether the Clean Water Act violations of FCWD,

MID, County of Merced and/or City of Merced resulted in property

loss and constituted taking under Article 1, Section 19 of the

Constitution of the State of California.

114. Whether FCWD, MID, County of Merced and/or the

City of Merced deliberately designed, constructed and maintained

the embankments along El Capital Canal which diverted the natural

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 30 of 55
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

31

flow of water that it escaped Bear Creek to the Thornton/Lopes

Plaintiffs’ real property.

115. Whether a raised earthen berm deliberately

designed, constructed and maintained by the County of Merced ran

parallel to Lopes Avenue, dammed or obstructed the flow of waters

and caused it to pond on Plaintiffs’ real property.

116. Whether FCWD, MID, County of Merced and/or the

City of Merced converted Bear Creek from a natural waterway for

use as an irrigation canal and part of a storm drain system, such

that the quantity of water delivered to Bear Creek in conjunction

with the rainfall on April 4, 2006, was such to overtop and

collapse a portion of the dirt embankment allowing flooding to

the Thornton/Lopes Plaintiffs’ real and personal property.

117. Whether the real and personal property damage

that was sustained by the Thornton/Lopes Plaintiffs constituted a

taking under Article 1, Section 19 of the Constitution of the

State of California.

118. Whether the Thornton/Lopes Plaintiffs have

sustained real and personal property damage, as a result of the

contamination and flooding events.

119. Whether the Thornton/Lopes Plaintiffs have

sustained and will continue to sustain other economic losses due

to the flooding and contamination events.

120. Whether Plaintiffs have incurred and will

continue to incur attorneys fees, appraisal fees and engineering

fees as a result of Defendants taking under Article 1, Section 19

of the Constitution of the State of California.

121. Whether the MID, County of Merced and/or the City

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 31 of 55
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

32

of Merced deliberately designed, constructed and maintained along

the Fairfield Channel dirt embankments which failed to function

as intended and collapsed allowing water to escape the Fairfield

Channel and flood the Yosemite Plaintiffs’ real and personal

property.

122. Whether the same Defendants deliberately

designed, constructed and maintained a raised embankment for a

lateral irrigation canal adjacent and behind the south of the

Yosemite Plaintiffs’ property which served as a dam and

obstructed flood water and caused it to pond on the Yosemite

Plaintiffs’ property.

123. Whether the same Defendants designed, constructed

and maintained Kirby Road which was raised above ground level

without a means by which flood water might travel underneath or

around the roadway. As a result, Kirby Road obstructed the flow

of water and caused it to pond on the Yosemite Plaintiffs’ real

property.

124. Whether Fairfield Channel was part of an

irrigation system, such that the quantity of water delivered to

the Fairfield Channel in conjunction with the rainfall on April

4, 2006, was such to overtop and collapse a portion of the dirt

embankment allowing water to flood the Fairfield Channel and

flood the Yosemite Plaintiffs’ property.

125. Whether the MID, County of Merced and/or the City

of Merced failed to adequately design the channel and the dirt

embankments along Fairfield Channel resulting in its collapse.

126. Whether the conduct and/or public structures of

the MID, County of Merced and City of Merced resulting in

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 32 of 55
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

33

personal and real property damage to Yosemite Plaintiffs and

constituted taking under Article 1, Section 19 of the

Constitution of the State of California.

127. Whether the Yosemite Plaintiffs have sustained

real and personal property damage, as a result of the

contamination and flooding events.

128. Whether the Yosemite Plaintiffs have sustained

and will continue to sustain other economic losses due to the

flooding and contamination events.

129. Whether Plaintiffs have incurred and will

continue to incur attorneys fees, appraisal fees and engineering

fees as a result of Defendants taking under Article 1, Section 19

of the Constitution of the State of California.

130. Whether each of the Defendants failed to exercise

due care in the maintenance of the public improvements previously

identified so as to cause portions of the embankments to collapse

and/or the water to otherwise overtop the embankments.

131. Whether Defendants and each of them, since 1970

and continuing to the present, failed to maintain waste water

treatment refuse and disposal facilities including sewage

collection and conveyance systems, and rainwater or storm

drainage systems, such as to cause contamination to soil,

groundwater and surface water in and around Plaintiffs’ real

property.

132. Whether the conditions of the public improvements

previously identified constituted a dangerous condition of public

property.

133. Whether Defendant Ranchwood Homes developed tract

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 33 of 55
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

34

homes to the north of the Beachwood Plaintiffs and in conjunction

therewith designed and constructed a raised earthen berm or

barrier that in the course of the flood of April 4, 2006,

obstructed and blocked the flood waters so as to cause it to back

up and pond on property of the Beachwood Plaintiffs.

134. Whether Ranchwood Homes acted unreasonably in the

design and construction of the earthen berm, including failing to

provide a means by which to divert the water away from

Plaintiffs’ property.

135. Whether all of the conditions of public and

private property as described above constituted a nuisance

depriving Plaintiffs of the use and enjoyment of their property.

136. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration

that Defendants have violated and are in violation of the Clean

Water Act.

137. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a

declaration as to the rights and liabilities of Plaintiffs and

Defendants. 

138. Whether injunction should be issued ordering

Defendants to operate in compliance with the Clean Water Act, and

if applicable, the effluent and receiving water limitations in

its NPDES permits as well as state and federal standards of

enforceable under the Clean Water Act.

139. Whether the court should order Defendants to pay

civil penalties per violation per day for its violations of the

Clean Water Act.

140. Whether the Court should order Defendants to pay

Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys fees and costs, including expert

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 34 of 55
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

35

witness fees as provided by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).

141. Whether Plaintiffs should be awarded general

damages according to proof.

142. Whether Plaintiffs should be awarded special

damages, including but not limited to real and personal property

damages, decreased market value, stigma damages, loss of

habitability, cost of repair, loss of use and enjoyment of

property, wage loss, loss of past and future income, loss of

rental income, business interruption losses, medical and related

expenses, medical monitoring costs, cleanup costs and relocation

expenses.

143. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on

damages.

144. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees

and costs of suit incurred, including engineering and appraisal

fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1036. 

Defendants’ List

145. Whether any act or omission by any of the

Defendants was the cause of the flooding in the Beachwood area.

146. Whether any act or omission by any of the

Defendants was the cause of Plaintiffs’ claimed damages.

147. Whether there is any “contamination” at the

Plaintiffs’ properties and, if so, whether it is traceable to

Defendant(s) and/or Plaintiffs.

148. Whether any claimed “contaminant” qualifies as a

“pollutant” under the Clean Water Act.

149. Whether any of the Plaintiffs have actually

suffered any physical injury as a result of any act or omission

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 35 of 55
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

36

of Defendant(s).

150. Whether any Defendant owns and/or operates a

“point source” as defined by the Clean Water Act.

151. That the County of Merced has in the past and

continues to comply with all aspects of the Clean Water Act

(CWA).

152. That the County of Merced has taken all necessary

steps and procedures to obtain the appropriate NPDES permit(s).

153. That the County of Merced has not discharged any

pollutant in violation of the CWA.

154. That the County of Merced has not violated any

provisions of regulations or standard of any permit including a

NPDES permit.

155. That the County of Merced has not discharged any

pollutant from any “point source” into waters of the United

States.

156. That the County of Merced knows of no “point

source” from which there was any discharge by the County.

157. That the County of Merced has at all times taken

all steps to obtain and has made all necessary permits for use of

aquatic or vector pesticides or herbicides. 

158. That the County of Merced knows of no facility

owned or operated by the County which has been identified by the

EPA or the State or any one else as a “point source.”

159. That the County of Merced has fully complied with

all requirements of the R.W.Q.C.B.

160. That the County of Merced has designed and

followed “best management practices” and has taken all steps

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 36 of 55
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

37

necessary to design a “storm water management program.”

161. That the County of Merced has not discharged from

any “point source” to the vicinity of the Beachwood Plaintiffs.

162. That the County of Merced does not have and it

does not control any public improvement, public facility, sewer,

water storm drainage or system or a public utility in the area

impacted by the April 4, 2006, flood water or in the vicinity of

the Beachwood Plaintiffs.

163. That the County of Merced does not have and has

not controlled the design, construction or maintenance of the El

Capital Canal, Black Rascal Creek, Bear Creek Canal, Fairfield

Canal or lateral.

164. That the County of Merced has not designed,

constructed or converted any natural water way into an irrigation

system or storm water system including Black Rascal Creek, El

Capital Canal, Bear Creek or Cana [sic] Creek. 

165. That the County of Merced has not discharged any

water or pollutant in the vicinity of the Soares Dairy

Plaintiffs, whether or not from a “point source.”

166. That the County of Merced has at all times, not

operated its wastewater treatment facility and its collection

system in accordance with its permits and does not and has not

operated said facility or systems in the vicinity of the

Plaintiffs or in the vicinity of any area of the April 4, 2006,

flood waters.

167. That the County of Merced’s handling of the

waters which occurred from the flood that occurred in April of

2006, was reasonable and did not result in any damage to any of

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 37 of 55
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

38

the Plaintiffs including by other flood waters or alleged

contamination from those waters.

168. That the County of Merced has not caused any

damage to any of the Plaintiffs from any alleged contamination of

groundwater or surface water at or near Plaintiffs’ residences or

businesses.

169. That the County of Merced has done nothing which

would lead to a “taking” as defined by Article 1, Section 19 of

the Constitution of the State of California.

170. The County of Merced contends that the Plaintiffs

have not suffered any damages as a result of any contamination

and that they have failed to mitigate damages sustained by them

as a result of flooding which occurred in April 2006.

171. The County of Merced contends that the Plaintiffs

who suffered damage, if any, as a result of flooding that

occurred in April 2006, were fully aware of the likelihood of

such flooding and, nonetheless, accepted the risk associated with

such flooding.

172. The County of Merced contends that the Plaintiffs

and each of them failed to mitigate any damages that they claim

to have suffered.

173. The County of Merced contends that the actions of

Plaintiffs and each of them, contribute to any damage suffered by

them.

174. The County of Merced is immune from prosecution

of all State claims pursuant to Government Code Sections 835.4,

820.2, 830.6 and 831.2.

175. The County of Merced contends that the Plaintiffs

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 38 of 55
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

39

and each of them are barred by the statutes of limitations set

forth in Government Code Section 338(j) and 28 U.S.C. § 2462.

176. The County of Merced contends that some of the

Plaintiffs’ actions are barred as a result of their failure to

file the appropriate claim as required by Government Code

Sections 900 and 901, et seq.

177. The County of Merced contends that Plaintiffs do

not have standing to bring an action under the Clean Water Act.

178. The County of Merced contends that some of the

Plaintiffs have entered into a flood easement which prevents them

from pursuing an action for damages which they claim to have

suffered as a result of any flooding which may have occurred.

179. The County of Merced contends that claims which

have been brought by the Plaintiffs for Equitable Relief and are

barred by the doctrines of laches and unclean hands.

180. The County of Merced contends that the

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they have failed to exhaust

their administrative remedies.

181. The County of Merced at all times acted in good

faith.

182. The County of Merced is not and has not

discharged any pollutants from any MS4s or from any “point

source” whether storm drainage or not.

183. The County of Merced complied with all NPDES

Phase I permit requirements.

184. Whether Ranchwood Homes developed tract homes to

the north of the Beachwood Plaintiffs.

185. Whether Ranchwood Homes designed and constructed

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 39 of 55
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

40

a raised earthen berm or barrier that in the course of the flood

of April 4, 2006, obstructed and blocked the flood water so as to

cause it to back up and pond on the property of the Beachwood

Plaintiffs.

186. Whether Ranchwood Homes acted unreasonably in the

design and construction of the alleged earthen berm or barrier

including, but not limited to, a failure to provide a means by

which to divert the water away from the Beachwood Plaintiffs’

property. 

187. Whether a raised earthen berm or barrier designed

or constructed by Ranchwood Homes was the legal cause of the

injuries alleged by the Beachwood Plaintiffs.

188. Whether Plaintiffs’ real and personal property

have sustained and will continue to sustain damages, including,

but not limited to damage, to structures, foundations, walls and

personal contents resulting in decreased market value, stigma

damage and loss of habitability of their residences as a result

of an unreasonable flood barrier for which Ranchwood Homes is

legally responsible.

189. Whether the Beachwood Plaintiffs have further

incurred and will continue to incur costs of repair for this

damage.

190. Whether an unreasonable flood barrier designed or

constructed by Ranchwood Homes legally caused the Beachwood

Plaintiffs’ real property to flood and has and will continue to

be contaminated with pollutants, such that Plaintiffs have been

prevented from use and enjoyment of their properties.

191. Whether as a legal cause of the alleged

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 40 of 55
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

41

unreasonable flood barrier as alleged in the complaint,

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer economic

losses, including wage loss, loss of past and future income, loss

of rental income, relocation expenses, clean-up costs, and

business losses.

192. Whether as a legal cause of the alleged

unreasonable flood barrier as identified in the complaint,

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer personal

injuries related to the flooding as previously alleged.

193. Whether the Beachwood Plaintiffs have incurred

and will continue to incur medical expenses, including medical

monitoring costs.

194. Whether as a legal result of the alleged

unreasonable flood barrier as identified in the complaint,

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional

distress, anxiety, fear of illness, depression and other

psychological, emotional and mental injuries resulting from the

contamination and flooding as alleged above.

195. Whether Ranchwood Homes, through its employees,

agents and contractors, since 1970 and continuing thereafter,

have owned operated, constructed, managed, maintained, supervised

and controlled the sewage and storm drain system and sewage

treatment plants identified in Plaintiffs’ complaint.

196. Whether Ranchwood Homes legally caused the

discharge of pollutants into surface and subsurface waters, the

close proximity of sewage treatment plants to the irrigation

system, the inability to completely segregate the storm drain and

sewage systems and the permeability of the dirt embankments along

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 41 of 55
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

42

the irrigation system contaminated the ground water and soil in

the vicinity of the Plaintiffs.

197. Whether Plaintiffs were unaware of this ongoing

contamination alleged in their complaint until October of 2006.

198. Whether Ranchwood Homes, through its employees,

agents and contractors, whose identities are presently unknown,

owned, operated, constructed, managed, maintained, supervised,

and controlled the roadways, levees, irrigation channels, water

levels of adjoining channels, laterals, creeks of the irrigation

system, raised berms, and/or raised flood barriers as alleged in

Plaintiffs’ complaint, so as to cause water to escape from the

irrigation canals, flood Plaintiffs’ property and pond on it.

199. Whether the alleged ownership, operation,

construction, management, maintenance, supervision, and control

of the storm and sewage treatment systems, sewage treatment

plants, roadways, levees, irrigation channel, water levels of

adjoining channels, laterals and creeks of the irrigation system,

contaminated the ground water in the vicinity of Plaintiffs,

flooded Plaintiffs’ property, and allowed water to pond on it,

constituted a nuisance under California Civil Code Section 3479

in that it deprived Plaintiffs of the quiet enjoyment of their

property.

200. Whether Plaintiffs’ real and personal property

sustained and will continue to sustain damages, including, but

not limited to, damage to structures, foundations, walls and

personal contents resulting in decreased market value, stigma

damage and loss of habitability of their residences.

201. Whether Plaintiffs have incurred and will

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 42 of 55
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

43

continue to incur costs of repair for their property.

202. Whether as a legal cause of the alleged nuisance,

Plaintiffs’ real property was flooded and has and will continue

to be contaminated with pollutants, such that Plaintiffs have

been prevented from use and enjoyment of their properties to

their damage.

203. Whether as a legal result of the alleged

nuisance, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer

economic losses, including, but not limited to, wage loss, loss

of past and future income, loss of rental income, relocation

expenses, clean-up costs and business losses.

204. Whether as a legal cause of the alleged nuisance,

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer personal

injuries related to contamination and flooding as previously

alleged. 

205. Whether Plaintiffs have incurred and will

continue to incur medical expenses.

206. Whether as a legal result of the alleged

nuisance, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer

emotional distress, anxiety, fear of illness, depression and

other psychological and emotional injuries resulting from the

contamination and flooding. 

207. Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants’ statement of

undisputed facts. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Jurisdiction is also invoked

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 43 of 55
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

44

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as supplemental claims are asserted under

California law. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

B. Contested. 

1. Whether the Federal Clean Water Act applies to

non-surface waters. 

2. The nature and extent that a natural act

(substantial rainfall) will shield Defendants from Plaintiffs’

claims.

3. The extent to which various Plaintiffs’ claims are

barred by the appropriate statutes of limitations, claims filing

requirements and standing. 

4. Whether Defendants FCWD, AA&A Associates, Inc.,

Merced Irrigation District, Merced Irrigation District, Drainage

District No. 1, the County of Merced or the City of Merced have

violated and continue to violate the Clean Water Act by

violations of the terms of their NPDES Permits, if one has been

issued to the entity.

5. Whether Defendants FCWD, AA&A Associates, Inc.,

Merced Irrigation District, Merced Irrigation District, Drainage

District No. 1, the County of Merced or the City of Merced have

violated and continue to violate the Clean Water Act by

discharging pollutants to waters of the United States without a

NPDES permit authorizing such discharges.

6. Whether each of the violations by Defendant FCWD,

AA&A Associates, Inc., Merced Irrigation District, Merced

Irrigation District, Drainage District No. 1, the County of

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 44 of 55
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

45

Merced or the City of Merced in excess of their NPDES Permits

constitute separate actionable violations of the Clean Water Act. 

7. Whether Defendants Merced Irrigation District,

Merced Irrigation District, Drainage District No. 1, the County

of Merced or the City of Merced were required to apply for

coverage under the statewide general NPDES permit for discharge

of aquatic pesticides for aquatic weed and pest control in waters

of the United States (“Aquatic Pest Permit”).

8. Whether Defendant County of Merced was required to

apply for a NPDES Clean Water Act 402(p) permit as part of the

first tier applicants.

9. Whether Plaintiffs’ 60-day Notice letters

contained sufficient information to permit Defendants FCWD, AA&A

Associates, Inc., Merced Irrigation District, Merced Irrigation

District, Drainage District No. 1, the County of Merced or the

City of Merced to identify the standards violated, the activities

constituting the violations, the general dates and approximate

locations of the violations, as required under 40 C.F.R.

§ 135.3(a).

10. Whether Plaintiffs have standing.

11. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to requested

injunctive relief.

12. Whether penalties apply and if so in what amount.

13. Whether Plaintiffs are prevailing parties and

therefore entitled to attorney fees and costs. 

VII. Case Schedule.

1. All parties agree that they shall have ten (10) days to

respond to the Amended Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 45 of 55
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

46

VIII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

IX. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

X. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. At the meeting of defense and Plaintiffs’ counsel on

June 14, 2007, Plaintiffs proposed the parties stipulate to the

appointment of a special pretrial master under Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Rule 53, for purposes of coordinating the timing

and sequence of discovery as well as resolving any discovery

disputes. Defendants did not feel the appointment of a special

master was warranted. It was agreed that in this Pre-Trial

Conference Statement, Plaintiffs would set forth their position

as to why a special master would best serve the interests of the

court and the parties, and Defendants other than AA&A Associates,

Inc., would set forth their position as to why such appointment

was not warranted.

2. The Defendants believe that the Court should assist the

parties in a general discovery schedule and dates by which party

depositions are taken. It is also believed that the designation

of liability experts at a date which is relatively early may

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 46 of 55
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

47

facilitate settlement and may also allow the parties to assess

motions for summary judgment which could serve to reduce the

number of claims and parties that will go forward to trial.

A. Plaintiffs’ Position Regarding Need for Appointment of

Master Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Rule 53, for Purposes of Coordinating Discovery.

1. Under Rule 53, this court has the authority to appoint

a special master to “address pre-trial and post-trial matters

that cannot be addressed effectively and in a timely manner by an

available district judge or magistrate judge of the district.” 

(Rule 53(a)(1)(C)).

2. The parties have not agreed as to the necessity for and

when any special master should be appointed. This will be

addressed in a future scheduling order. 

3. Plaintiffs contend a special master should be appointed

for the following reasons. 

4. The appointment of a special master in this action is

warranted by the following factors: (1) the sheer number of

Plaintiffs in this action which is currently 450 but will exceed

1,500 with the addition of the Baltimore Air Coil claims; (2) the

number of parcels of property affected by this litigation which

is currently around 200 but will exceed 500 with the addition of

the Baltimore Air Coil claims; (3) by the complex environmental

issues resulting from Defendants’ violations of the Clean Water

Act as well as other actions which have led to chemical and

biological contamination of the soil and groundwater at or near

Plaintiffs’ properties; (4) by the number of party Defendants and

the causation and liability interplay between these various

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 47 of 55
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

48

public and private entities in relation to Plaintiffs’ damages;

and (5) the significant amount of expert involvement and analysis

necessary for the evaluation of liability, causation and damages.

5. As a result of these factors, statutory provisions

relating to the sequence, timing and limitations associated with

discovery would not appear to result in the most efficient use of

judicial resources nor the resources of the parties. The

appointment of a special master to carefully craft case and issue

specific pre-trial orders; resolve discovery disputes; monitor

the progress of this litigation through frequent status

conferences; assist the parties in relationship to the unique

issues related to complex environmental matters; and to

facilitate appropriate mediation or other case resolution

activity, would result in the most effective utilization of the

court’s and parties’ resources. Given the number of parties to

this litigation, the percentage of the costs incurred by each

party through use of a special master, would not appear to be so

great as to present any hardship to the parties.

6. While this Court and Magistrate Judge are more than

capable of performing each of the functions identified above, it

is believed that given the court’s already congested calendar and

workload, that these matters could be done more effectively and

in a more timely fashion through the appointment of a special

master.

7. Plaintiffs proposed Attorney William L. Nagle to act as

a special master in this case. For over 13 years, Mr. Nagle has

served as a special master/mediator by court appointment in

numerous state and federal courts. While Mr. Nagle’s duties have

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 48 of 55
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

49

primarily focused on complex construction defect litigation, he

has worked as a special master in hundreds of environmental

contamination cases as well, including Superfund sites. He also

has experience in subsidence and flood related cases involving

significant property damage. Plaintiffs have been in contact

with Mr. Nagle in relationship to the possibility of serving as a

special master in this litigation, and Mr. Nagle has confirmed he

has no conflicts as defined under Rule 53(a)(2). Mr. Nagle’s

curriculum vitae outlining his qualifications, is attached to the

Joint Mandatory Scheduling Statement as Appendix A. 

B. Defendants’ Position Regarding Coordinating Discovery 

1. The Defendants recognize that this will be a difficult

case to manage but the attorneys in this matter are all very

experienced and professional. This Court has the ability and

tools to control this litigation and the Defendants request that

the parties and their attorneys be given the opportunity to

conduct discovery before the Court appoints a Special Master and

forces the parties to incur unnecessary expense. Further, the

test for appointment of a pretrial master is whether a judge or

magistrate judge is unable to handle the pretrial matter in an

effective and timely fashion. (See FRCP 53(a)(1)(C)). To date,

there have been no disputes between counsel, nor is there any

indication that the Magistrate Judge cannot effectively

administer this case.

2. While numerous Plaintiffs make the case large, size does

not necessarily create complexity such that a special master’s

services are needed. All size means is that whatever the issues

(either complex or simple), more people have them. Defendants

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 49 of 55
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

50

will propose a standardized list of interrogatories to be served

on all Plaintiffs that will identify the basic claims being made

which will likely obviate the need to depose everyone. This

approach has been adopted through Case Management Orders by State

and Federal Courts in recent Welding Rod cases which also contain

hundreds of Plaintiffs. If through the course of this case

either side can demonstrate either individually or by mutual

agreement that a Special Master is necessary that would be the

appropriate time to make the reference.

3. If it becomes necessary to appoint a Special Master,

the City of Merced and FCWD would ask the Court to consider the

appointment of a Master who is local and who may be less

expensive than Mr. Nagle. Specifically, these Defendants would

propose Nicholas DiBiaso or Don Fischbach.

4. Defendant AA&A Associates, Inc., has no opposition to

the appointment of a special master for the purposes outlined by

Plaintiffs, and has no opposition to the selection of William

Nagle as Special Master. 

5. In the event this court determines that a special master

is necessary and effective in this matter, which is disputed by

these Defendants, neither MID nor MIDD1 will stipulate to the use

of Mr. Nagle as a special master. The firm representing these

two Defendants has a great deal of knowledge concerning Mr. Nagle

and his methodology in conducting special master procedures. 

About one half of the litigation of that firm involves

construction defect litigation and it has worked with Mr. Nagle

on several occasions. It is not unusual to see multiple special

master sessions ongoing simultaneously on one day with Mr. Nagle

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 50 of 55
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

51

as special master dividing his time between the multiple sessions

which we find unacceptable. This practice also makes it

especially difficult to get Mr. Nagle on the phone should a

discovery dispute arise. There are other issues that impact

costs and discovery procedures that we do not wish to detail

here, absent further order of the court. If the court orders the

use of a special master, then MID and MIDD1 will have suggestions

as to who may be appropriate for this task. 

6. Initial Rule 26 disclosures shall be made by all

parties on or before August 13, 2007. 

7. For additional parties, the parties agree that their

Rule 26 Disclosures will be made on or before October 15, 2007. 

Thereafter, commencing October 20, 2007, any party may propound 

limited discovery directed at identification of parties and

claims. The disclosures and discovery shall be reciprocal. 

Disclosures shall be made quarterly for the first year from

October 15, 2007, through October 15, 2008, and semi-annually

thereafter. 

8. The parties agree that in this case, Rule 26 shall be

amended to provide that reciprocal Rule 26 disclosures shall be

made quarterly commencing January 15, 2008, and thereafter to

provide information concerning any supplemental or new

information pertaining to all claims and defenses. 

9. The next Scheduling Conference in this case shall be

held December 7, 2007, at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

C. Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off

1. At this juncture, the parties are not able to provide

any firm dates with regard to expert and non-expert discovery,

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 51 of 55
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

52

but will re-address these issues as the litigation progresses.

D. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

1. At this juncture, the parties are not able to provide

any firm dates with regard to expert and non-expert discovery,

but will re-address these issues as the litigation progresses.

E. Cut-Off For Expert Witness Discovery.

1. At this juncture, the parties are not able to provide

any firm dates with regard to expert and non-expert discovery,

but will re-address these issues as the litigation progresses.

F. Proposed Discovery Limits

1. Given the complex nature of this litigation, the

parties anticipate that statutory provisions relating to the

sequence, timing, limitations and other procedural issues related

to discovery will have to be modified. Specific issues will be

addressed by the parties as this litigation progresses.

G. Need for A Protective Order

1. At this juncture, the parties are unaware of any

specific need for a protective order relating to discovery,

although the parties agree that this issue can be re-addressed as

the need arises.

H. Proposals Relating to the Timing, Sequencing, Phasing

or Scheduling of Discovery

1. Given the complex nature of this litigation, the

parties anticipate that statutory provisions relating to the

sequence, timing, limitations, and other procedural issues

related to discovery will have to be modified. Specific issues

will be addressed by the parties as this litigation progresses.

///

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 52 of 55
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

53

I. Discovery Outside Of the United States

1. At this juncture, the parties are unaware of any

specific need for any foreign depositions, although the parties

agree that this issue can be re-addressed as the need arises.

J. Whether Parties Anticipate Video and/or Sound Recording

of Depositions

1. All parties agree that video and/or sound recording of

depositions may be required in this litigation. The parties

agree that proper notice to all parties as to the intended use of

video and/or sound recording depositions will be provided to all

counsel.

K. Proposed Date for a Mid-Discovery Status Report and

Conference

1. The parties are in agreement that a further Case

Management Conference in this matter is warranted. The parties

would request a second Case Management Conference be scheduled by

the court (or in conjunction with the duties of a Special Master)

within the next 180 days.

L. Discovery Issues Relating to Electronic, Digital and/or

Magnetic Data

1. The parties have carefully reviewed the court’s order

setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference which outlines the

parties’ responsibilities as to the preservation of electronic,

digital and/or magnetic data. The specific timing, sequence and

production procedures related to the electronic digital and/or

magnetic data will be further addressed by the parties and/or a

special master as this litigation progresses.

///

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 53 of 55
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

54

M. Pre-Trial and Trial Dates

1. Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed that at this

juncture it is unrealistic to provide this court with a trial

date or any dates related to dispositive or non-dispositive

motions. The parties will be ready to readdress this issue in

conjunction with the subsequent scheduling conference as

previously referenced in this statement.

N. Settlement Possibilities

1. None at this early stage of litigation.

O. Jury/Non-Jury

1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint presents both jury and non-jury

issues. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury in this action. The

City of Merced and FCWD demand a jury trial in this matter.

P. Estimated Time for Trial

1. At this juncture, no reasonable estimate can be made as

to the length anticipated for trial in this action.

Q. Bifurcation

1. At this juncture, the parties have not identified any

specific issues in relationship to bifurcation, but agreed to

preserve this issue to be addressed in further scheduling

conference and/or pre-trial statements.

R. Related Matters

1. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Related Case

pertaining to California Sports Fishing v. Diablo Grande, Inc.,

1:00-cv-5979 OWW DLB.

S. Common Document Repository. 

1. The parties have agreed that all documents pertaining

to this case shall be stored in a common depository with a

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 54 of 55
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

55

custodian mutually agreeable to all parties. All parties shall

have reasonable access to and the ability to copy and otherwise

access electronic data stored in the repository in accordance

with the rules that they develop and will provide the Court by

stipulation to be incorporated into an order governing the

establishment and the maintenance of a document repository for

this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 31 Filed 07/25/07 Page 55 of 55