United States v. Avista Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 28, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-00358
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Avista Corporation (United States v. Avista Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Avista Corporation, (E.D. Wash. 2025).

Opinion

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jan 28, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:24-CV-00358-MKD Plaintiff, 7 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED v. MOTION TO ENTER 8 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AVISTA CORPORATION, AND JUDGMENT 9 Defendant. ECF No. 4 10 Before the Court is the United States’ Unopposed Motion to Enter 11 Stipulation of Settlement and Judgment. ECF No. 4. The Court has reviewed the 12 motion, the proposed stipulation of settlement and judgment, and the record and is 13 fully informed. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the motion and 14 enters the proposed stipulation of settlement and judgment. 15 FINDINGS 16 The Court has reviewed the motion, the stipulation of settlement and 17 judgment, and the record and is fully informed. The Court finds that the proposed 18 stipulation of settlement and judgment arises from and serves to resolves a dispute 19 within its subject matter jurisdiction. See Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, 20 AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986); ECF No. 1 at 3. 1 The Court also finds that the proposed stipulation of settlement and judgment 2 comes within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings and furthers the

3 objectives of the System Unit Resource Protection Act, upon which the claims in 4 the Complaint are based. See Local No. 93, 478 U.S. at 525; ECF No. 1 at 11-13. 5 Finally, the Court finds that the proposed stipulation of settlement and judgment is

6 fair, reasonable, and equitable, and that there is no indication it violates the law or 7 public policy. See Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 8 1355 (9th Cir. 1990). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

10 1. The Motion to Enter Stipulation and Settlement and Judgment, ECF 11 4, is GRANTED. 12 2. The Proposed Stipulation of Settlement and Judgment, ECF No. 4-1,

13 is ENTERED and attached to this Order. 14 3. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter for through the date 15 that Defendant makes all payment(s) due under the Stipulation in accordance with 16 its provisions.

17 18 19

20 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this 2 Order, provide copies to the parties, and administratively close the file.

3 DATED January 28, 2025. 4 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16

20 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 9 ) Plaintiff, ) 10 ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-358 11 ) AVISTA CORPORATION, ) STIPULATION OF 12 ) SETTLEMENT AND Defendant. ) JUDGMENT 13 )

14 WHEREAS, the United States of America, acting at the request of the 15 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (“NPS”), has filed 16 a complaint (the “Complaint”) simultaneously with this Stipulation of Settlement 17 and Judgment (the “Stipulation”) under federal trespass law, the System Unit 18 Resource Protection Act (“SURPA”), 54 U.S.C. §§ 100721-100725, and the 19 Revised Code of Washington §§ 4.24.630 and 64.12.030; 20 1 WHEREAS the Complaint alleges that Avista Corporation (“Avista”) is 2 liable for response costs and damages resulting from Avista’s unauthorized 3 activities to stabilize and replace a power pole for which the relevant special use 4 permit had expired within the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, in 5 northeastern Washington in March 2017 (the “March 2017 Activities”); 6 WHEREAS, the United States and Avista (the “Parties”) agree that it is in

7 the public interest to resolve this matter without litigation and have negotiated this 8 Stipulation in good faith to avoid expensive and protracted litigation; 9 NOW THEREFORE, before the taking of any testimony, without the 10 adjudication or admission of any issue of fact or law except as provided in

11 Paragraphs 1 and 2, without any admission of liability by Avista, and with the 12 consent of the Parties, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND 13 DECREED as follows:

14 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 15 54 U.S.C. § 100723(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. Venue lies in this District 16 under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Avista resides in this district and the events at 17 issue occurred in this District. For the purposes of this Stipulation, or any action to

18 enforce it, Avista consents to the Court’s jurisdiction and consents to venue in this 19 judicial district. 20 1 2. For purposes of this Stipulation, or any action to enforce it, Avista 2 agrees that the Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted under 3 federal trespass law; SURPA, 54 U.S.C. §§ 100721-100725; and the Revised Code 4 of Washington §§ 4.24.630 and 64.12.030. 5 3. The obligations of this Stipulation apply to and are binding upon the 6 United States and upon Avista and its successors. Any change in Avista’s

7 ownership or corporate status shall not alter its obligations hereunder. 8 4. Within 30 days of approval and entry by the Court of this Stipulation, 9 Avista shall pay to the United States the sum of $900,000 as response costs and 10 damages, together with interest accruing from the date on which the Stipulation is

11 approved and entered by the Court, at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 as of 12 the date of entry. 13 5. Avista shall pay the response costs and damages due, together with

14 interest, by FedWire Electronic Funds Transfer to the U.S. Department of Justice 15 account, in accordance with instructions provided to Avista by the Financial 16 Litigation Unit (“FLU”) of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of 17 Washington after entry by the Court of this Stipulation. The payment instructions

18 provided by the FLU will include a Consolidated Debt Collection System 19 (“CDCS”) number, which Avista shall use to identify all payments required to be 20 1 made in accordance with this Stipulation. The FLU will provide the payment 2 instructions to: 3 Jillian Caires 1411 East Mission Avenue, MSC-33 4 P.O. Box 3727 Spokane, Washington 99202 5 Jillian.caires@avistacorp.com

6 on behalf of Avista. At the time of payment, Avista shall send notice that payment 7 has been made to: 8 Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section Environment and Natural Resources Division 9 U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station 10 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 EESCDCopy.ENRD@usdoj.gov 11 and 12 Karen Battle Sanborn 13 Damage Assessment Case Officer WASO/EQD/Resource Protection Branch 14 National Park Service Karen_Battle-Sanborn@nps.gov. 15 Such notice shall state that the payment is for the response costs and damages 16 owed pursuant to the Stipulation in United States v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Avista Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-avista-corporation-waed-2025.