Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01141-8/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRI-DAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD SCHEDIWY AND LAURA 

STRAUSS,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

1:11-cv-01141-AWI-MJS

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE A RESPONSE AND 

STAYING THE PREVIOUS 

ORDER UNTIL A DECISION IS 

ISSUED ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR RELIEF 

On March 6, 2014, this Court issued an order indicating that Defendants, Richard 

Schediwy and Laura Strauss (“Defendants”), “are REQUIRED to submit to Tri-Dam and the 

Army Corps of Engineers within 30 days a detailed plan regarding bringing their property into 

compliance by destroying their retaining wall, including the footings, and filling the property to 

its pre-excavation condition.” The order further indicated that “Defendants MAY submit to TriDam and the Army Corps of Engineers within 30 days a detailed plan regarding bringing their 

property into compliance by destroying their retaining wall down to the footings. This proposal 

must contain a plan for constructing a retaining wall that meets with Tri-Dam’s requirements and 

makes use of the presently placed footings. Tri-Dam is encouraged but not required to consider 

granting a permit to Defendants as they have proposed.”

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 89 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On April 4, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for relief from judgment alleging that this 

Court’s March 6, 2014, order is either impossible or impracticable. 

Defendants have submitted evidence tending to indicate that compliance with the Court’s

order may be impossible or impracticable if Tri-Dam requires the removal the footings of the 

Schediwy retaining wall. Specifically, Defendants assert that removal of the footings could cause 

substantial erosion of the shoreline and lakebed, removal of lateral support to the sewer bench 

road that could result in collapse, and damage of the sewer line. 

As the Court indicated in its previous order, Tri-Dam is encouraged to entertain a 

proposal from Plaintiffs that would remove the retaining wall in its present location but would 

“make[] use of the presently placed footings” if such a proposal is feasible and not in violation of 

the Tri-Dam easement. Order Granting Summary Judgment, Doc. 85 at p. 21.1 Defendants have 

submitted, as attachments to the declaration of Mr. Schediwy, rough proposals moving toward 

compliance with the Tri-Dam easement. It appears that several of the proposals submitted by Mr. 

Schediwy may restore the shoreline to its original contour and therefore would not interfere with 

the waters of the reservoir.

Plaintiff is ordered to prepare a thorough response indicating whether or not Tri-Dam 

believes that each of the rough proposals would violate its easement and, if so, a detailed 

explanation of how the proposal would violate the easement. Tri-Dam may also address any 

structural or geographic questions or issues that it believes would assist the Court in making a 

determination on the issue at hand. The Court will tentatively set the deadline for response by 

Tri-Dam for April 25, 2014, with the understanding that time will be extended as necessary to 

allow Tri-Dam to prepare a sufficiently complete response. If an extension of time to file a 

response is necessary Tri-Dam must file a motion to extend time to file a response and continue 

the scheduled hearing date of May 5, 2014, by April 25, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

///

///

 

1 The Court had anticipated that such a proposal would include use of the presently placed footings, to the extent 

possible, as support for a dock.

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 89 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Parts 1 and 2 of this Court’s March 5, 2014 order, imposing a timeline for submitting 

proposals by Defendants, are stayed pending the resolution of Defendants’ motion for relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01141-AWI-SMS Document 89 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 3