Sierra Northern Railway v. Port of West Sacramento

Opinion

DAVID A. DIEPENBROCK (SBN 215679) W. SCOTT CAMERON (SBN 229828) ROBERTO G. CRUZ (SBN 342729) weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin LAW CORPORATION 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: 916.558.6000 Facsimile: 916.446.1611 Email: ddiepenbrock@weintraub.com scameron@weintraub.com rcruz@weintraub.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, SIERRA NORTHERN RAILWAY

SIERRA NORTHERN RAILWAY, Case No.: 2:24-CV-01899-DJC-JDP Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE vs. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; ORDER PORT OF WEST SACRAMENTO and Judge: Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta RAMCON ENGINEERING & a California corporation, Defendants.

aka PORT OF WEST SACRAMENTO, Counterclaimant,

vs.

Counterdefendant.

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2024, Plaintiff Sierra Northern Railway (“SNR”) filed the Complaint in the above-entitled action. WHEREAS, Defendant Ramcon Engineering & Environmental Consulting, Inc, filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 19, 2024. WHEREAS, Defendant Port of West Sacramento (“Port”) filed an Answer to the Complaint on August 19, 2024. WHEREAS, Counterclaimant Sacramento-Yolo Port District, aka Port of West Sacramento (“Port”) filed a Counterclaim against Sierra Northern Railway. WHEREAS, the Parties hereto have entered into a Settlement Agreement, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and fully incorporated herein by this reference, settling the claims alleged in this case. WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement includes a provision, Section 5, in which each of the Parties agreed to the court retaining jurisdiction over the Parties under section 664.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and applicable federal law to enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, should that be necessary. WHEREAS, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. WHEREAS, federal law allows district courts to expressly retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, such that breach of the settlement agreement would be a violation of the court’s dismissal order, and support the court’s exercise of ancillary jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate that dismissal of their respective pleadings in this action with prejudice is conditioned upon the Court first issuing an order retaining jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate to this Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and applicable federal law, and respectfully request that the Court enter the accompanying proposed order. Dated: December 30, 2024 weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin LAW CORPORATION

By: /s/ David A. Diepenbrock David A. Diepenbrock Attorneys for Plaintiff Sierra Northern Railway

Dated: December 31, 2024 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD A Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Lauren Jones as authorized on 12/31/24 Jeffrey Mitchell Lauren Jones Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: December 31, 2024 DESMOND, NOLAN, LIVAICH & CUNNINGHAM

By: /s/ Brian Manning as authorized on 12/31/24 Brian Manning Benjamin Tagert James Silverthorn Attorneys for Defendant ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the parties Settlement Agreement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and applicable federal law.

Dated: January 6, 2025 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE