From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish Wildlife

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Sep 28, 2005
Case No. C-04 4324 WHA (N.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. C-04 4324 WHA.

September 28, 2005

Brendan Cummings, Kassia Siegel, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Joshua Tree, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.

Linda Krop, Karen M. Kraus, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, Santa Barbara, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER.

KELLY A. JOHNSON, Acting Assistant Attorney General, JEAN E. WILLIAMS, Chief, BRIDGET KENNEDY McNEIL, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Env. Natural Resources Division, Wildlife Marine Resources Division, Washington, DC.

KEVIN V. RYAN, United States Attorney, JOANN M. SWANSON, Chief, Civil Division, JAMES A. CODA, Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.


STIPULATION SETTLING PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR FEES AND COSTS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER


Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Environmental Defense Center and Defendants U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gale Norton, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (collectively, "the Service"), by and through their undersigned counsel, say as follows:

WHEREAS on August 4, 2004, the Service issued a final rule downlisting the Santa Barbara County distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander ("Santa Barbara population") and the Sonoma County distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander ("Sonoma population") from "endangered" status to "threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating the status of these populations as distinct population segments, listing the California tiger salamander, including the Central California population of the California tiger salamander (Central California population), rangewide as "threatened", and adopting a special regulation pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act authorizing take of the California tiger salamander if it occurs as a result of routine ranching practices;

WHEREAS on October 13, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the Service challenging the portions of the August 4, 2004 rule downlisting the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations, eliminating their status as distinct population segments, and adopting the Section 4(d) special regulation, as well as the failure of the Service to designate critical habitat for the Central California and Sonoma populations;

WHEREAS on February 3, 2005, this Court approved Plaintiffs' and Defendants' settlement on Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for Relief providing for the designation of critical habitat by dates certain for the Central California salamander and the Sonoma salamander;

WHEREAS on August 18, 2005, this Court granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' remaining claims, and on August 22, 2005 entered final Judgment, vacating the downlisting of the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations and the elimination of their status as distinct population segments, reinstating their status as "endangered" distinct population segments, and remanding to the Service for any further rulemaking;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs have submitted a claim for their attorneys' fees and costs in this matter to Defendants;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in the interest of the parties and judicial economy to settle Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and costs without further litigation; and

WHEREAS, the parties enter this Stipulation without any admission of fact or law, or waiver of any claims or defenses, factual or legal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:

1. Defendants agree to settle all of Plaintiffs' claims for costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the above-captioned matter, for a total of $230,000.00. A check will be made payable in that amount to the Environmental Defense Center, 906 Garden St., Santa Barbara, CA 93101;
2. Defendants agree to submit all necessary paperwork to the Department of Treasury's Judgment Fund Office, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4), within ten (10) business days of receipt of the signed court order approving this stipulation;
3. Plaintiffs agree to accept payment of $230,000.00 in full satisfaction of any and all claims for attorneys' fees and costs of litigation in the above-captioned litigation, through and including the date of this agreement;
4. By this agreement, Defendants do not waive any right to contest fees claimed by Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel, including the hourly rate, in any future litigation. Further, this stipulation as to attorney's fees and costs has no precedential value and shall not by used by any party as evidence in any other attorneys' fees litigation.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish Wildlife

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Sep 28, 2005
Case No. C-04 4324 WHA (N.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2005)
Case details for

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish Wildlife

Case Details

Full title:CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation, and…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Sep 28, 2005

Citations

Case No. C-04 4324 WHA (N.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2005)