CA Coastkeeper Alliance v. Cosumnes Corp.

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JASON R. FLANDERS (Bar No. 238007)
Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com
ERICA A. MAHARG (Bar No. 279396)
Email: eam@atalawgroup.com
AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP
8 Rio Vista Ave.
Oakland, CA 94611
Telephone: (916) 202-3018
DREVET HUNT, SBN 240487
Email: dhunt@cacoastkeeper.org
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE
1100 11th Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (415) 606-0864
Attorneys for Plaintiff
California Coastkeeper Alliance
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COSUMNES CORPORATION dba MURIETA
EQUESTRIAN CENTER, a California
Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:20-cv-01703-SCR
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 218 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3

2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violations of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., and the Court having considered the pleadings,
evidence, and applicable law, the Court hereby enters the following judgment in favor of Plaintiff
California Coastkeeper Alliance:
1. 	Liability
The Court finds that Defendant Cosumnes Corporation d/b/a Murieta Equestrian Center
has violated the Clean Water Act by operating as a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation and
discharging pollutants into waters of the United States without permit authorization under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, as set forth more fully in the Court’s summary
judgment orders at ECF 99 and ECF 158.
2. 	Civil Penalty
Plaintiff’s claims for civil penalties have been resolved by Stipulation and Order for
payment towards an environmentally beneficial project in the Cosumnes River Watershed. ECF 212
¶ 4(a).
3. 	Injunctive Relief
Defendant Cosumnes Corporation has submitted a Report of Waste Discharge to the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and enrolled for permit coverage under California’s
Industrial General Stormwater Permit. Defendant’s additional obligations regarding injunctive relief
and reporting are set forth by Stipulation and Order at ECF 212 ¶¶ 4(b), 5.
4. 	Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff’s claims for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action have been
partially resolved by Stipulation and Order at ECF 212 ¶ 1.
5. 	Retention of Jurisdiction
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Judgment and to resolve any
disputes arising under it or the Stipulation and Order at ECF 212.
////
////
Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 218 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3

3
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
DATED: October 30, 2025
Hon. Sean C. Riordan
United States District Court Magistrate Judge
Case 2:20-cv-01703-SCR Document 218 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3