Patterson

Westlands Water District v. Patterson

Good Law
900 F. Supp. 1304·1995 WL 548344·26 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20471·1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18818
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 9, 1995CV-F-94-5217 OWWCalifornia16,192 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wanger, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs Westlands Water District (“Westlands”) and San Benito County Water District (“San Benito, collectively “the Districts”) move to dismiss their Complaint without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). The motion is opposed by the Federal Defendants, the Exchange Contractors, and the Friant Intervenors. The Federal Defendants, the Exchange Contractors, and the Friant Intervenors move for summary judgment. The Exchange Contractors, the Madera Irrigation District, and the Chow-chilla Water District join in the motions of the Federal Defendants and of the Friant Intervenors. The Districts oppose the summary judgment motions. At the hearing on the motions, all parties were granted the opportunity to submit additional legal argument in support of or in opposition to the motions for summary judgment. The additional briefing has been received and considered.

II. Background

A. Procedural History

In 1992, the Districts sued the same defendants seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, challenging…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.