Opinion
Christopher A. Sproul, Jodene Isaacs ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES, San Francisco, California Brian Gaffney, LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY APC, Pacifica, CA Patricia Weisselberg LAW OFFICE OF PATRICIA WEISSELBERG, Mill Valley, CA Attorneys for Plaintiffs PACIFICANS FOR A SCENIC COAST, PACIFICANS FOR HIGHWAY 1 ALTERNATIVES, and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
JEANNE SCHERER, DAVID GOSSAGE LUCILLE Y. BACA DEREK S. VAN HOFTEN STACY LAU Attorneys for Defendants CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Malcolm Dougherty.
Kevin D. Siegel BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Counsel for Defendant City of Pacifica.
Kimon Manolius, Christopher D. Jensen, Adam W. Hoffman, HANSON BRIDGETT LLP, San Francisco, California Counsel for San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
JOHN C. CRUDEN, Assistant Attorney General, Environment & Natural Resources Division, SETH M. BARSKY, Chief, S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief, ALISON C. FINNEGAN, Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Wildlife & Marine Resources Section Washington, DC. LESLIE M. HILL U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Environmental Defense Section Washington, DC SEAN C. DUFFY U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division Natural Resources Section, Washington, DC Attorneys for the Federal Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS CITY OF PACIFICA AND SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on May 8, 2015, and filed an Amended Complaint on June 26, 2015;
WHEREAS, the original Complaint named City of Pacifica (the "City") as a defendant in the fourth claim for relief regarding alleged Clean Water Act violations, but the Amended Complaint omitted any claim for relief against the City and instead alleged that Plaintiffs "joined, pursuant to FRCP 19(a)(1), " the City "as a potentially required party who is subject to service of process, who may have an interest relating to the subject of the action, and who is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest" (¶ 24);
WHEREAS, the original Complaint named the San Mateo County Transportation Authority ("TA") as a defendant in the fourth claim for relief regarding alleged Clean Water Act violations, and alleged TA violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act. But, the Amended Complaint omitted any claim for relief against TA and instead alleged that Plaintiffs "joined, pursuant to FRCP 19(a)(1), " TA "as a potentially required party who is subject to service of process, who may have an interest relating to the subject of the action, and who is so situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect the interest" (¶ 23);
WHEREAS, it is the position of the City and TA that the Amended Complaint improperly names them as defendants;
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs are willing to dismiss the City and TA provided that all Defendants agree that the City and TA are not indispensable parties to the lawsuit, and that Defendants waive any defense on such grounds;
WHEREAS, Defendants waive any defense that the case should be dismissed due to failure to join the City and TA;
WHEREAS, all Defendants and Plaintiffs now agree that the City and TA are not indispensable parties;
The Plaintiffs and all Defendants thus stipulate, subject to the Court's approval, to the following:
1. The City of Pacifica and San Mateo County Transportation Authority are not indispensable parties and are not necessary for the resolution of this matter;
2. The City of Pacifica and San Mateo County Transportation Authority shall be dismissed as defendants in this matter.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The City of Pacifica and San Mateo County Transportation Authority are not indispensable parties and are not necessary for the resolution of this matter;
2. The City of Pacifica and San Mateo County Transportation Authority are dismissed as defendants in this matter.