Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02205/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Olive Ranch
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE

Assistant Attorney General

PAMELA S. TONGLAO, Attorney

United States Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 23986

Washington DC 200026-3986

Telephone: (202) 305-0897

 

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

EDMUND BRENNAN

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, 10th floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2700

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

____________________________________ 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-02205-LKK-PAN

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENTER 

) CONSENT DECREE AND

v. ) TO VACATE STATUS CONFERENCE

)

CALIFORNIA OLIVE RANCH, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

Plaintiff United States of America and Defendant California Olive Ranch hereby stipulate

to the entry of the proposed consent decree that was lodged with this Court on November 2,

2005. The proposed consent decree would resolve all of the claims in this action. In support of

this stipulation, the parties state as follows:

1. On November 2, 2005, the United States filed a complaint against California

Olive Ranch in case number 2:05 CV 2205 LKK-PAN alleging, inter alia, that California Olive

Ranch had violated sections 301(a) and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) and

1344, by unlawfully discharging pollutants into waters of the United States in San Diego County,

California.

2. When the United States lodged the proposed consent decree on November 2,

Case 2:05-cv-02205-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2005, the United States requested that the Court withhold consideration of the proposed consent

decree while the United States provided an opportunity for public comment pursuant to

Department of Justice regulations published at 28 C.F.R. §50.7.

3. On November 9, 2005, the Department of Justice published in the Federal

Register a notice that the proposed consent decree had been lodged with the Court. See 70 Fed.

Reg. 68,087 (Nov. 9, 2005). This notice invited public comment on the proposed consent decree

and provided for a public comment period of 30 days.

4. The public comment period ended on December 9, 2005. The Department of

Justice received no comments on the proposed consent decree.

5. The Court should approve a settlement and enter a proposed consent decree “if it

is fair, reasonable, and equitable and does not violate the law or public policy.” Sierra Club v.

Electronic Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard for judicial

approval of consent decree in Clean Water Act citizen suit); see also Earth Island Inst., Inc. v.

Southern California Edison Co., 838 F. Supp. 458, 463 (S.D. Cal. 1993).

As long as the consent decree comes “‘within the general scope of the case made

by the pleadings,’” furthers the “objectives upon which the law is based,” and

does not “violate the statute upon which the complaint was based,” the parties’

agreement may be entered by the court.

Sierra Club, 909 F.2d at 1355 (citations omitted). In reviewing a settlement, inquiry is directed

not to whether the court itself would have reached a particular settlement, but whether the

proposed settlement is a reasonable compromise and otherwise in the public interest. United

States v. Akzo Coatings, Inc., 949 F.2d 1409, 1435 (6th Cir. 1991). When the United States is a

party to the consent decree, a court “should pay deference to the judgment of the government

agency which has negotiated and submitted the proposed judgment.” SEC v. Randolph, 736 F.2d

525, 529 (9th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 380 F.Supp. 2d 1104,

1111 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

6. The chief objective of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) is to “restore and maintain

the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).

7. The proposed consent decree fulfills this objective by requiring California Olive

Case 2:05-cv-02205-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Ranch to certify the purchase of three (3) mitigation credits at the Dove Ridge Conservation

Bank and enjoining California Olive Ranch from discharging pollutants into any water of the

United States except in compliance with the CWA and its implementing regulations. Consent

Decree ¶¶ 16, 17.

8. The proposed consent decree also ensures that California Olive Ranch will pay a

civil penalty that is commensurate with its alleged violations of the CWA and consistent with the

equitable factors set forth in CWA section 309(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1319 (d). Specifically, under the

proposed partial consent decree, California Olive Ranch shall pay a civil penalty to the United

States in the amount of $70,000. Consent Decree ¶ 12. This civil penalty shall be paid within 30

days after entry of this consent decree. Id.

9. In addition, the proposed consent decree provides a stipulated penalty of $500 per

day for the first 30 days of noncompliance with any term of the consent decree, $750 per day for

the next 30 days, and $1000 per day for any further days of noncompliance. Consent Decree ¶

28. 

10. The parties believe that the proposed consent decree is fair, reasonable, consistent

with applicable law, and in the public interest.

WHEREFORE, the United States and California Olive Ranch hereby stipulate to the

entry of the proposed consent decree. In addition, the parties stipulate to the vacatur of the status

conference set for January 17, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 23, 2005 s/ Pamela S.Tonglao 

PAMELA S. TONGLAO

United States Department of Justice 

Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

Tel: (202) 305-0897

Fax : (202) 514-8865

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Eastern District of California

EDMUND BRENNAN

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, 10th floor

Case 2:05-cv-02205-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 554-2700

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States

Dated: December 23, 2005 s/ George T. Kammerer 

GEORGE T. KAMMERER

Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP

2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 450

Sacramento, CA 95833-4136

Tel: (916) 

Fax: (916)

Attorneys for Defendant California Olive Ranch

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006 /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

HON. LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-02205-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 4 of 5
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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on December 23, 2005, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE AND TO VACATE STATUS

CONFERENCE to be served by first-class mail to counsel named below:

George T. Kammerer

Hefner, Stark & Marois, LLP

2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 450

Sacramento, CA 95833-4136

/s/ Pamela S. Tonglao

Pamela S. Tonglao

Case 2:05-cv-02205-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 5 of 5