The opinion
1 G. David Robertson, Esq. (SBN 111984)
ROBERTSON, JOHNSON, MILLER & WILLIAMSON
2 50 W. Liberty Street, Suite 600
Reno, Nevada 89501
3
Telephone: 775.329.5600
4 Facsimile: 775.348.8300
Email: gdavid@nvlawyers.com
5
R. Paul Yetter, Esq. (pro hac vice)
6 Justin P. Tschoepe, Esq. (pro hac vice)
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
7
811 Main Street, Suite 4100
8 Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: 713.632.8000
9 Email: pyetter@yettercoleman.com
Email: jtschoepe@yettercoleman.com
10
DAVID A. DIEPENBROCK (SBN 215679)
11
weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
12 LAW CORPORATION
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
13 Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: 916.558.6000
14 Facsimile: 916.446.1611
Email: ddiepenbrock@weintraub.com
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
16
JOSEPH HARDESTY and YVETTE HARDESTY
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION
19
JOSEPH HARDESTY, an individual; and Case No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
20 YVETTE HARDESTY, an individual, Consolidated with: 2:12-cv-2457-KJM-KJN
21 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL OF ACTION WITH
22
vs. PREJUDICE AND RETENTION OF
23 JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;
24 QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
ORDER
et al.,
25
Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller
26 Defendants. Magistrate: Hon. Kendall J. Newman
Trial Date: October 17, 2023
27 Action Filed: September 8, 2010
1 STIPULATION
2 WHEREAS, on September 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in the above-entitled
3 action.
4 WHEREAS, a jury found the County liable for violating Plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive
5 due process rights and awarded damages. The County filed motions for judgment after trial and new
6 trial, which District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller denied by order dated March 31, 2018.
7 WHEREAS, the County appealed the jury's verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for
8 the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, by memorandum opinion dated August 19, 2020, upheld the
9 jury’s finding of liability for violation of due process as to the County. The Court affirmed the jury’s
10 finding that the County acted arbitrarily and unreasonably to deprive the Hardestys of their chosen
11 occupation. But the Ninth Circuit reversed liability as to the individual defendants on grounds of
12 immunity and reversed and remanded damages to the District Court as the jury’s award of damages
13 was excessive.
14 WHEREAS, the Court had set this case for a second jury trial on October 11, 2023 limited to
15 determining the amount of damages caused to the Hardestys by the County’s actions.
16 WHEREAS, the Parties hereto have entered into a Settlement Agreement, a true and correct
17 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and fully incorporated herein by this reference, settling
18 and dismissing the claims alleged in this case in return for a payment by the County to the Hardestys
19 of $58.5 million, along with other terms in the Settlement Agreement.
20 WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement includes a provision, Section 9, in which each of the
21 Parties agreed to the court retaining jurisdiction over the Parties under section 664.6 of the California
22 Code of Civil Procedure and applicable federal law to enforce the terms and conditions of the
23 Settlement Agreement, should that be necessary.
24 WHEREAS, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
25 plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal
26 signed by all parties who have appeared.
27 WHEREAS, federal law allows district courts to expressly retain jurisdiction to enforce a
1 dismissal order, and support the court’s exercise of ancillary jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian
2 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994).
3 WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate that this action be dismissed with prejudice as to
4 all Defendants and in its entirety, with each Party to bear his own attorneys’ fees and costs; provided,
5 however, that the Parties’ stipulation of dismissal of this action with prejudice is conditioned upon
6 the Court issuing an order retaining jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the terms and conditions
7 of the Settlement Agreement.
8 WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate to this Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the
9 terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
10 section 664.6 and applicable federal law, and respectfully request that the Court enter the
11 accompanying proposed order.
12 Dated: October 30, 2023 COLE HUBER LLP
13
14 By: /s/ Derek P. Cole
Derek P. Cole
15 Counsel for Defendant
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
16
17 Dated: October 30, 2023 YETTER COLEMAN LLP
18
19 By: /s/ Justin P. Tschoepe
Justin P. Tschoepe
20 Counsel for Hardesty Plaintiffs
21
Dated: October 30, 2023 weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
22 LAW CORPORATION
23
24 By: /s/ David A. Diepenbrock
David A. Diepenbrock
25 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOSEPH HARDESTY and
26 YVETTE HARDESTY
27
| ORDER
2 In accordance with the above stipulation, and for good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby
3 || ordered that the above action shall be dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants and in its entirety,
4 | with each Party to bear his own attorneys’ fees and costs; provided. However, the Court shall in this
5 || exceptional case, in accordance with section 664.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and
6 || applicable federal law, retain jurisdiction over the Parties to the above-entitled action to enforce the
7 ||terms and conditions of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement, a true and correct copy of which 1s
8 || attached hereto as Exhibit A, and to the accompanying Stipulation, and embodied herein by this
9 || reference.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 | DATED: November 2, 2023.
13
14 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_4-
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DIMISSAL AND RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
Exhibit A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and General Release (“Agreement”) is entered into between
Plaintiffs Joseph L. Hardesty, Yvette Hardesty and Defendant County of Sacramento, parties to
the civil rights action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, entitled Joseph Hardesty, et al. v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District, et al., No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN, before the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. The
Agreement is for the purpose of full and complete resolution of any and all claims, demands, cause
or causes of action, obligations, rights or liabilities of any kind, whether known or unknown,
express or implied, existing between the parties, arising from or in connection to, the
aforementioned civil action. The parties enter into the Agreement for the good and valuable
consideration acknowledged and accepted below. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been
entered on the date the last party executes this Agreement, as provided within (“Effective Date”).
PARTIES
The parties to this Agreement are Plaintiffs Joseph L. Hardesty, Yvette Hardesty
(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant County of Sacramento (“County”).
RECITALS
This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts:
1. Certain claims, disputes and controversies have arisen between the parties to this
Agreement.
1.1 The Schneider Historic Mine, California Mine ID No. 91-34-0042 (“SHM”) is a
mining operation located at 14026 Meiss Road, in Sloughhouse, California, which
has historically operated on approximately 3,691 acres composed of Assessor
Parcel Nos. 128-0070-012, 056, and 058 to 061; 128-0090-033, 034, and 039 to
042 and 044; 128-0100-003, 046 to 049, and 052; and 128-0120-040 and 041
(“SHM Property”).
1.2 Members of the Schneider Family have been in the business of conducting mining
operations throughout the SHM Property since the 1930’s and claimed in this action
that Defendants took administrative and enforcement actions to put SHM out of
business.
1.3 Plaintiffs operated a sand and gravel mining business on SHM under the name
Hardesty Sand and Gravel pursuant to an oral agreement with the Schneider family
to mine the SHM Property. The County took administrative and enforcement
actions to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to practice their chosen
profession of mining at SHM.
1.4 On August 23, 1994, a letter from County Planning recognized that the mine had a
vested right under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1976 (“SMARA”).
The letter also indicated that a Reclamation Plan and financial assurances were
required in order to continue operation of the mine.
1.5 On November 6, 2002 the Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved a reclamation
plan (2000-0178) for the SHM. According to the staff report for the reclamation
plan, the mine pre-exists SMARA regulations, and, as a vested mine under the
provisions of SMARA, is exempt from the County's surface mining regulation and
no Use Permit is required. The report acknowledged that mining was on-going and
would occur on previously mined and yet-to be-mined areas. The reclamation plan
approved by the Board, acknowledged both the County's 1994 vested right
determination and stated that mining could occur throughout the full extent of the
mine property.
1.6 On April 14, 2010 and May 25, 2010, the County Code Enforcement Division sent
Violation Notices to the owners of the mine property contending that the operation
of the mine had expanded, intensified, or enlarged beyond the scope of the mine's
vested right. The mine representatives appealed the Violation Notices.
1.7 On or about September 28, 2010, the County Board of Supervisors denied the
appeal and adopted findings that determined operation of the SHM had expanded,
intensified, enlarged, and/or been extended beyond the scope of its vested right
(“Findings”). The Findings stated Plaintiffs could not continue mining operations
on the SHM Property.
1.8 On June 10, 2011 and July 25, 2011, the County issued a Final Order to Comply
concerning SHM under SMARA (Public Resources Code sections 2774.1 and
2774.2), determining SHM had substantially deviated from its approved
Reclamation Plan and that the amount of the financial assurance mechanisms for
SHM were inadequate to ensure reclamation of the SHM Property (“Order to
Comply”). The County also ordered Hardesty Sand and Gravel to “reclaim” SHM
under the reclamation plan the County had previously approved. Plaintiffs contend
that this reclamation order forced them to dismantle the large processing plant
Hardesty Sand and Gravel had constructed on SHM, and to sell its parts along with
other mining equipment for less than fair market value. Plaintiffs contend that the
cost to replace that equipment in 2023 would exceed $38,000,000.
1.9 Plaintiffs initiated a civil rights action seeking redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983
against the County and County employees as individual defendants on September
8, 2010, asserting claims that the County’s actions, including the Findings and
Notice of Order to Comply, deprived them of their right to conduct mining
operations on the SHM Property, all in violation of their rights to procedural and
substantive due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
1.10 Such disputes and controversies include the claims, demands, and causes of action
in a civil rights action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, entitled Joseph Hardesty et. al. v. Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
(“Legal Action”). For the purposes of this Agreement, disputes and controversies
include, but are not limited to, any claims, demands, and cause or causes of action
that were previously dismissed against or returned in favor of the County and its
agents or employees in the Legal Action.
1.11 After trial in the Legal Action, a jury found the County liable for violating
Plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive due process rights and awarded damages.
The County filed motions for judgment after trial and new trial, which District
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller denied by order dated March 31, 2018.
1.12 The County appealed the jury's verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, by memorandum opinion dated August 19,
2020, upheld the jury’s finding of liability for violation of due process as to the
County. The Court affirmed the jury’s finding that the County acted arbitrarily and
unreasonably to deprive the Hardestys of their chosen occupation. But the Ninth
Circuit reversed liability as to the individual defendants on grounds of immunity
and reversed and remanded damages to the District Court as the jury’s award of
damages was excessive. As of this writing. a trial regarding such damages is
scheduled to commence on October 17, 2023.
1.13 The Ninth Circuit expressly ruled that, as to the Plaintiffs’ damages, the lost value
of their business was the wrong measure of damages for their substantive due
process claim, and that damages were to be based on their inability to practice their
chosen profession as individuals. Damages are to be measured under this standard
in the remand trial that is scheduled.
1.14 The County appealed the decision of the Ninth Circuit to the United States Supreme
Court, which denied its petition for a writ of certiorari on June 28, 2021.
1.15 In the County’s appeal, the County did not challenge the jury’s determination the
County had violated the Hardesty’s procedural due process rights.
1.16 Plaintiffs agree that the payment made pursuant to this Agreement fully
compensates them for damages resulting from their inability to practice their chosen
profession resulting from the County ordering SHM to cease operations. These
damages will compensate Plaintiffs for the deprivation of their right to due process,
which resulted in the loss of their right to mine, receive payments for sale of
aggregate products, and sell aggregate products, including from stockpiles
Plaintiffs placed on the SHM Property.
1.17 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1988 the court in this case is empowered to award attorneys’
fees for the legal services performed on this case which was filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. On October 4, 2021 Judge Mueller granted Plaintiffs’ request to
withdraw the pending fee motion without prejudice to it being refiled with a new
fee motion. This settlement includes all fees that might have been awarded directly
to Plaintiffs’ counsel from the County in addition to damages to Plaintiffs.
1.18 On September 21, 2023, the parties participated in a mediation in which the
Honorable Layn R. Phillips (Retired) served as the neutral. Further, on October 2,
2023, the parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Kendall
J. Newman.
2. It is the intention of the parties to settle and dispose of, fully and completely, any and all
claims, demands, cause or causes of action, obligations, rights or liabilities of any kind,
whether known or unknown, express or implied, existing between the parties, arising out
of and in connection to the civil action identified in Paragraphs 1 above, as of the Effective
Date of this Agreement. In entering into this Agreement, the County affirms the following
as to the Plaintiffs:
2.1 This Agreement represents a continuation of the County’s commitment to
acknowledge and recognize the appellate decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding the verdict finding the County liable on
Plaintiffs’ claims.
2.2 This Agreement further represents a continuation of the County’s commitment to
acknowledge and recognize Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller’s order, dated
March 31, 2018, denying the County’s motions for judgment after trial and new
trial and the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein to the extent
not overturned by the Ninth Circuit.
2.3 This Agreement further represents a continuation of the County’s commitment to
acknowledge and recognize the County Board of Supervisor Resolution 2022-0510,
dated June 14, 2022, reaffirming the existence of the SHM vested right and the
validity of its existing Reclamation Plan, and rescinding all County actions
concerning the SHM vested right, Reclamation Plan, and financial assurances that
gave rise to the Legal Action. In connection with that resolution, the County also
rescinded enforcement actions it took in May 2011 concerning the sale of material
from stockpiles located on the SHM Property and rescinded the authority for any
SMARA-related liens filed against the SHM Property.
3. This Agreement has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County,
and the County signatory below is authorized to execute this Agreement on the County’s
behalf.
DISMISSAL
4. Plaintiffs shall dismiss, with prejudice, this Legal Action referenced in Paragraph 1 above,
in exchange for the promises, covenants, conditions, and payments set forth in Paragraph
5, and in exchange for the County’s commitments as set forth in Paragraphs 2.1 through
2.3; provided, however, that the parties’ stipulation of dismissal of this action with
prejudice is conditioned upon the Court issuing an order retaining jurisdiction over the
parties to enforce the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The dismissal shall be filed
within five (5) working days of the Plaintiffs’ receipt of confirmation that the check
providing full payment called for in Paragraph 5.1 has cleared.
PAYMENTS
5. In exchange for the promises and warranties of Plaintiffs, the County shall issue or cause
to be issued payment totaling the gross amount of $58,500,000. That sum is inclusive of
attorneys’ fees and costs. That amount will be distributed as follows:
5.1 The gross amount of $58,500,000 will be paid by check to Plaintiffs’ attorney of
record, Paul Yetter, Yetter Coleman LLP, 811 Main Street, Suite 4100, Houston,
Texas 77002, for deposit into his attorney-trust account for distribution to the
Plaintiffs and co-counsel.
5.2 The parties understand and agree that the amount identified in Paragraph 5.1 is
subject to all applicable taxes, withholdings, and deductions required by law. The
County and their respective insurance carriers, representatives, employees, agents
and attorneys have made no representation about and take no position on the tax
consequences of this Agreement and/or the settlement proceeds paid pursuant to
this Agreement. A dispute regarding the tax status of this Agreement shall not affect
the validity of this Agreement. Plaintiffs have had an opportunity to discuss the
potential tax consequences of this Agreement with their own counsel or tax
professionals. Plaintiffs agree to indemnify and hold harmless the County from any
and all costs and assessments including, but not limited to, delinquent taxes,
penalties, and assessments levied against the County in connection with this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall, however, make the Plaintiffs
responsible for or require the Plaintiffs to indemnify the County for any failure by
the County to issue a proper notice of, through an Internal Revenue Service Form
1099 or otherwise, the County’s payment under this Agreement.
5.3 The check referenced in this paragraph will be made available for pickup by
Plaintiffs’ counsel no later than October 13, 2023.
5.4 The parties agree that the foregoing payment shall compensate the Plaintiffs for all
the damages they have alleged in the Legal Action, including as to the claims for
which the jury awarded damages and that were not the subjects of the County’s
appeal (as described in Sections 1).
GENERAL RELEASE
6. In consideration of the releases contained herein, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by each party, the parties promise,
agree, and generally release as follows:
6.1 Except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this Agreement, each party
hereby releases, remises, and forever discharges each other from any and all claims,
demands, cause or causes of action, obligations, rights or liabilities of any kind,
whether known or unknown, express or implied, existing between the parties,
arising from or in connection to the Legal Action identified in Paragraph 1 above.
This Agreement shall be effective as a full and final accord and satisfaction, and as
a bar to all actions, causes of action, and obligations, costs, expenses, attorneys’
fees, damages, losses, claims, liabilities, and demands of whatsoever nature,
character, or kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which could have
been brought, arising out of and in connection to the Legal Action identified in
Paragraph 1 above.
6.2 Each party to this Agreement specifically waives the benefit of the provisions of
Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which states:
A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor
or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or
her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if
known by him or her, would have materially affected his or
her settlement with the debtor or released party.
6.3 The parties intend that the waiver identified in Paragraph 6.2 above extend to all
known and unknown, express and implied causes of action and claims of any kind,
whether at law or in equity. The parties acknowledge that this release has been
negotiated and agreed upon in anticipation of such a comprehensive release, and
the parties intend and hereby do release, acquit, and forever discharge each other
from any and all demands, cause or causes of action in connection with or arising
out of the Legal Action referenced in Paragraph 1 above, whether known, unknown,
unsuspected, or unforeseen, except as expressly reserved in conjunction with the
performance of this Agreement.
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
7. Each of the parties to this Agreement represents and warrants to, and agrees with, each
other party, as follows:
7.1 Each party has received independent legal advice from their attorneys with respect
to the advisability of making the settlement provided for in this Agreement, with
respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement, and with respect to the
meaning and waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542.
7.2 No party (nor any officer, agent, employee, representative, or attorney of or for any
party) has made any statement or representation or failed to make any statement or
representation to any other party regarding any fact relied upon in entering into this
Agreement, and each party does not rely upon any statement, representation,
omission or promise of any other party (or of any officer, agent, employee,
representative, or attorney of or for any party), in executing this Agreement, or in
making the settlement provided for herein, except as expressly stated in this
Agreement.
7.3 Each party to this Agreement has made such investigation of the facts pertaining to
this settlement and this Agreement, and all the matters pertaining thereto, as they
deem necessary.
7.4 Each party has carefully read this Agreement, and the contents and effect of the
Agreement are known and understood by the parties. The parties acknowledge that
they have executed this Agreement freely and voluntarily after independent
investigation, opportunity to receive independent legal advice from their attorneys,
and without fraud, duress, or undue influence.
7.5 In entering into this Agreement, each party assumes the risk of any unknown facts
or law. If any party should subsequently discover that any fact relied upon by it in
entering into this Agreement was untrue or that their understanding of the facts or
of the law was incorrect, such party shall not be entitled to any relief in connection
therewith including, without limitation on the generality of the foregoing, any
alleged right or claim to set aside or rescind this Agreement. This Agreement is
intended to be and is final and binding between the parties hereto, regardless of any
claims of mistake of fact or law or of any other circumstance whatsoever.
7.6 Each party has not heretofore assigned, transferred, or granted, or purported to
assign, transfer, or grant, any of the claims, demands, and cause or causes of action
disposed of by this Agreement.
7.7 Each term of this Agreement is contractual and not merely a recital.
7.8 Should it be determined by a court that any term of this Agreement is
unenforceable, that term shall be deemed to be deleted. However, the validity and
enforceability of the remaining terms shall not be affected by the deletion of the
unenforceable terms.
7.9 Each party is aware that they may hereafter discover claims or facts in addition to
or different from those they now know or believe to be true with respect to the
matters related herein. Nevertheless, it is the intention of the parties to fully, finally
and forever settle and release all such matters, and all claims relative thereto, which
do now exist, may exist, or heretofore have existed between them. In furtherance
of such intention, the releases given herein shall be and remain in effect as full and
complete mutual releases of all such matters, notwithstanding the discovery of
existence of any additional or different claims of facts relative thereto.
7.10 The parties will execute all such further and additional documents as shall be
reasonable, convenient, necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of this
Agreement including a dismissal with prejudice by Plaintiffs of the Legal Action
identified in paragraph 1. The parties further agree to do all things necessary and to
execute all further documents necessary and appropriate to carry out and effectuate
the terms and purposes of this Agreement.
7.11 The parties agree to accept the respective signatures of Plaintiffs Joseph L.
Hardesty, Yvette Hardesty, and representatives of the County, and their respective
attorneys of record, as binding.
MODIFICATIONS
8. No amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless
contained in a writing signed by each party to the Agreement. No waiver of any of the
provisions hereof shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor shall any waiver
constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by
the party making such waiver.
JURISDICTION
9. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and applicable federal law, the parties
agree that they will jointly request that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms
and conditions of this Agreement. Within fifteen (15) days after the County signs, the
parties will file with the Court a stipulation and proposed order to this effect, and will attach
thereto a fully executed copy of this Agreement. Should any action be instituted to enforce
any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs
and reasonable attorneys’ fees, in addition to all of the relief to which that party may be
entitled by law.
MISCELLANEOUS
10. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed and delivered within the State of
California and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be construed and
enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California.
11. This Agreement is fully incorporated and is the entire Agreement between the parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and
written agreements and discussions. This Agreement may be amended only by an
agreement in writing, signed by the parties, as set forth in Paragraph 8 above.
12. This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their
respective agents, employees, representatives, officers, directors, divisions, subsidiaries,
affiliates, assigns, heirs, and successors in interest.
13. Each party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. Hence, in any
construction to be made of this Agreement, the same shall not be construed against any
party.
14. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and when each party has signed and
delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and,
when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Agreement, which
shall be binding upon and effective as to all parties.
AWWwOAOw 2.847 VV VET TINGE INVES fw PUMA Ve/iow PayY AT VE □□
15. The effective date of this Agreement (“Effective Date”) is the date it is signed by the last
party.
SO AGREED.
PLAINTIFFS:
/0 -S - 73 J Boe
Dated a A Lt:
seph L. Hardesty
10-F- 23
Dated / | LL (oe _—
Yvette Hardesty © --—-—"s
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO:
Dated Lisa A. Travis, County Counsel
Page 9 of 10
15. The effective date of this Agreement (“Effective Date’’) is the date it is signed by the last
party.
SO AGREED.
PLAINTIFFS:
Dated
Joseph L. Hardesty
Dated
Yvette Hardesty
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO:
10/5/23 HK.
Dated Lisa A. Travis, County Counsel
Page 9 of 10
ee mI ORI III EI OOO IIE IIR IRIS IEE ES EIS EEE IE NESS
Approved as to form:
10/5/23 HK, a-—
Dated Lisa A .Travis, County Counsel
Dated R. Paul Yetter, attorney for HARDESTY
PLAINTIFFS
Dated David A—Diepenbrock, attorney for
RDESYY PLAINFIFFS
10/5/24
Dated rekP. Cole rney for COUN/'Y OF
TO
_yolsfei___
Dated Richacd S. Linkert, attorney for COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO
Page 10 of 10
Approved as to form:
Dated Lisa A .Travis, County Counsel
10/6/2023 | |
Dated R. Paul Yetter, attorney for HARDESTY
PLAINTIFFS
10/6/23 —
Dated David A. Diepenbrock, attorney for
HARDESTY PLAINTIFFS
Dated Derek P. Cole, attorney for COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO
Dated Richard S. Linkert, attorney for COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO
Page 10 of 10