Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01141-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Schediwy
Defendant
Laura Strauss
Defendant
Tri-Dam
Plaintiff

Document Text:

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

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

1400033.2 1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED FORM OF FINAL JUDGMENT 

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

KEVIN M. SEIBERT (Bar No. 119356)

THOMAS E. MARRS (Bar No. 252485)

621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 444-1000

Facsimile: (916) 444-2100

kseibert@downeybrand.com

tmarrs@downeybrand.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TRI-DAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

TRI-DAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD SCHEDIWY and LAURA 

STRAUSS,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-CV-01141-AWI-SMS

STIPULATION AND FORM OF FINAL 

JUDGMENT 

Courtroom: 2, 8th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Anthony W. Ishii

Action Filed: July 8, 2011

Plaintiff Tri-Dam (“Tri-Dam”) and defendants Richard Schediwy and Laura Strauss 

(“Defendants”), (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, 

hereby submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Form of Final Judgment. 

STIPULATION

1. On September 9, 2011, Tri-Dam filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Defendants, seeking a permanent injunction requiring, among other things, Defendants to remove 

improvements, including a retaining wall, that were installed in a manner that was inconsistent 

with Tri-Dam approval. 

2. On March 6, 2014, the Court granted Tri-Dam’s motion for summary judgment

and entered a permanent injunction requiring, among other things, Defendants to demolish the 

retaining wall on their property consistent with plans approved by Tri-Dam. 

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 96 Filed 03/20/15 Page 1 of 4
DOWNEY BRAND LLP

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

1400033.2 2

STIPULATION AND FORM OF FINAL JUDGMENT 

3. Defendants subsequently demolished the retaining wall on their property

consistent with plans approved by Tri-Dam. 

4. On February 19, 2015, the Parties provided a Joint Status Update to the Court.

5. There being no further matters before the Court, the Parties respectfully request 

that the Court enter the proposed form of judgment attached as Exhibit A as the Court’s final 

judgment in this matter.

6. The Court should retain jurisdiction to enforce its previously entered permanent 

injunction. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: March 19, 2015

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By: /s/ Thomas E. Marrs

THOMAS E. MARRS

Attorney for Plaintiff

TRI-DAM

DATED: March 19, 2015 By: /s/ Kathleen Clack (as authorized 3/19/15)

KATHLEEN CLACK

Attorney for Defendants

RICHARD SCHEDIWY and LAURA STRAUSS

ORDER

Based on the parties’ stipulation, and good cause being shown, IT IS SO ORDERED. The 

Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the proposed form of judgment attached as Exhibit A as the 

Court’s final judgment in this matter. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the final 

judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 96 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 4
(;+,%,7$

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED FORM OF FINAL JUDGMENT 

(;+,%,7$

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 96 Filed 03/20/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 96 Filed 03/20/15 Page 4 of 4