Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Mgt. Dist.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 14, 2021
• Docket: 2:10-cv-02414
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 RICHARD S. LINKERT, Bar No. 88756 rlinkert@mathenysears.com 2 MATHENY SEARS LINKERT JAIME LLP 3638 American River Drive 3 Sacramento, CA 95864-4711 Telephone: (916) 978-3434 4 Facsimile: (916) 978-3430

5 Attorneys for Defendant SACRAMENTO COUNTY 6 DEREK P. COLE, Bar No. 204250 7 dcole@colehuber.com COLE HUBER LLP 8 2281 Lava Ridge Court – Suite 300 Roseville, California 95661 9 Telephone: (916) 780-9009 Facsimile: (916) 780-9050 10 Attorneys for Defendant 11 SACRAMENTO COUNTY

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SACRAMENTO DIVISION

15 JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al., Case No.: 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN 16 Consolidated with: 2:12-cv-2457-KJM-KJN Plaintiffs, 17 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO v. EXONERATE BOND 18 SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR 19 QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller al., Magistrate: Hon. Kendall J. Newman 20 Defendants. Trial Date: February 16, 2017 21 Action Filed: September 8, 2010

22 AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED CASES

27 1 STIPULATION TO EXONERATE BOND

2 The parties, through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows: 3 Plaintiffs and Sacramento County hereby stipulate to release the $53,402,501 bond (see 4 ECF No. 620) that was posted in accordance with this Court’s June 28, 2019, stay order (ECF No. 5 618). They also stipulate to exonerate Hartford Fire Insurance Company, the surety that posted the 6 bond. 7 Hartford’s bond secured Plaintiffs’ interest in their money judgment while the County’s 8 appeal was pending. See Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 9 1987). But the appeal is no longer pending. The Ninth Circuit reversed the damages awarded by 10 the jury against the County. Hardesty v. Sacramento Cty., 824 F. App’x 474, 478 (9th Cir. 2020). 11 And the Ninth Circuit has issued its mandate. (ECF No. 623.) The County petitioned the United 12 States Supreme Court for certiorari, but the Court denied the petition on June 28, 2021. 13 Because there is presently no money judgment to secure, no further proceedings remain in 14 the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Hartford’s bond no 15 longer serves any purpose and the parties agree that it may be released forthwith. 16 Accordingly, we request that the Court now do the following: 17 1. Order that bond number 72BSBID5173 issued by surety Hartford Fire Insurance 18 Company is released and the surety is exonerated from all liability under said bond as of the date 19 of this Court’s order. 20 2. Nothing in this Stipulation is intended to determine, nor shall determine, the scope 21 of further proceedings in this Court, including the issues to be tried or determined in accordance 22 with the Mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (ECF Doc Nos. 622, 623). 23 [Signatures on next page] 24 25 26 27 1 SO STIPULATED. 2 3 Dated: September 7, 2021 COLE HUBER LLP

5 By: /s/ Derek P. Cole Derek P. Cole, Esq. 6 Co-Counsel for Defendant SACRAMENTO COUNTY 7

8 Dated: September 7, 2021 PETERSON WATTS LAW GROUP, LLP 9

10 By: /s/ Glenn W. Peterson 11 Glenn W. Peterson, Esq. PETERSON WATTS LAW GROUP, LLP 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THE SCHNEIDER FAMILY 13 Dated: September 7, 2021 YETTER COLEMAN LLP 14

15 By: /s/ Christian J. Ward 16 Christian J. Ward, Esq. YETTER COLEMAN LLP 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THE HARDESTY FAMILY 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 For good cause shown, surety Hartford Fire Insurance Company is exonerated and bond 3 || number 72BSBID5173 is hereby released. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 This order resolves ECF No. 644. 6 |} DATED: September 14, 2021. 8 l ti / ¢ q_/ 9 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 a8 13

5 14 15 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28