Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01989/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01989-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

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 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01989-LKK-DAD 

1 

ANDREW L. PACKARD (State Bar No. 168690)

ERIK ROPER (State Bar No. 259756) 

EMILY J. BRAND (State Bar No. 267564) 

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

100 Petaluma Blvd. N Ste 301 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Tel: (707) 763-7227 

Fax: (707) 763-9227 

E-mail: andrew@packardlawoffices.com 

 erik@packardlawoffices.com 

 emily@packardlawoffices.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff CALIFORNIA 

SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non profit 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ANTHONY CORDIANO, an individual dba 

Jaguar Heaven and DANIEL FRYE, an 

individual dba Jaguar Heaven, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:12-CV-01989-LKK-DAD 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH 

PREJUDICE; ORDER GRANTING 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE [FRCP 

41(a)(2)] 

TO THE COURT: 

 Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“CSPA”), and Defendant Anthony 

Cordiano and Defendant Daniel Frye (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate as 

follows: 

WHEREAS, on or about May 29, 2012, CSPA provided Defendants with a Notice of 

Violations and Intent to File Suit (“60-Day Notice Letter”) under Section 505 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (“Act” or “Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365; 

WHEREAS, on July 30, 2012, CSPA filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants 

in this Court, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Cordiano, et al (USDC, E.D. Cal., 

Case 2:12-cv-01989-LKK-DAD Document 13 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 4
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 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01989-LKK-DAD 

2 

Case No. 2:12-CV-01989) and the Complaint incorporated by reference all of the allegations 

contained in CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter; 

WHEREAS, CSPA and Defendants, through their authorized representatives and without 

either adjudication of CSPA’s claims or admission by Defendants of any alleged violation or 

other wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement the allegations of CSPA as 

set forth in CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter and the Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs and 

uncertainties of further litigation. A copy of the agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) entered 

into by and between CSPA and Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by 

reference. 

WHEREAS, CSPA submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return receipt 

requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“the agencies”) and the 45-day 

review period set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has been completed without objection by the 

agencies. 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between 

the Parties that CSPA’s claims, as set forth in its 60-Day Notice Letter and the Complaint, be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Parties 

respectfully request an order from this Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In 

accordance with Clauses 15(b) and 17 of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties also request that 

this Court retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties through September 30, 2014, for the sole 

purpose of resolving any disputes between the Parties with respect to enforcement of any 

provision of the Settlement Agreement. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:12-cv-01989-LKK-DAD Document 13 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 4
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 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01989-LKK-DAD 

3 

Dated: December 11, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 

By:_/s/ Erik M. Roper_______________________ 

Erik M. Roper 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION 

 ALLIANCE 

Dated: December 11, 2012 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

By:_/s/ Melissa A. Thorme_________________ 

(As authorized on December 11 – L.R. 131) 

Melissa A. Thorme 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ANTHONY CORDIANO, et al

Case 2:12-cv-01989-LKK-DAD Document 13 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 4
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 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01989-LKK-DAD 

4 

ORDER 

Good cause appearing, and the Parties having stipulated and agreed, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance’s 

claims against Defendants Anthony Cordiano and Daniel Frye as set forth in CSPA’s 60-Day 

Notice Letter and the Complaint filed in Case No. 2:12-CV-01989-LKK-DAD1 are hereby 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the 

Parties through September 30, 2014, for the sole purpose of resolving any disputes between the 

parties with respect to enforcement of any provision of the Settlement Agreement attached to the 

Parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss as Exhibit A.2 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Dated: January 3, 2013.

1

 It appears that plaintiff timely provided the required notice to the United States, California and the defendants, as 

required by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A). See Complaint (ECF No. 1). The U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) has 

advised the court that it has no objection to the proposed dismissal and settlement agreement. U.S. DoJ Letter of 

December 7, 2012 (ECF No. 11). See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(3) (providing for the protection of the interests of the 

United States). 

2

 The court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)(A). In addition, 

the court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. See Saint John’s Organic Farm v. Gem County 

Mosquito Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Binding settlement agreements over which the 

district court retains jurisdiction to enforce are judicially enforceable”), citing Richard S. v. Dep’t of Dev. Servs. of 

Cal., 317 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 2:12-cv-01989-LKK-DAD Document 13 Filed 01/04/13 Page 4 of 4