Preview
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Exempt from filing fee pursuant to
Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685) Government Code § 6103
2 Justin Jones Rodriguez (SBN 279080)
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor ELECTRONICALLY
3 San Francisco, California 94111 F I L E D
Telephone: (415) 291-7450 Superior Court of California,
4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco
Email: bwlee@manatt.com 06/23/2022
5 Email: jjrodriguez@manatt.com Clerk of the Court
BY: ERNALYN BURA
6 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Deputy Clerk
Marcia Scully (SBN 80648)
7 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907)
Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745)
8 700 North Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
9 Telephone: (213) 217-6834
Facsimile: (213) 217-6890
10 Email: hbeatty@mwdh2o.com
11 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
12
Additional counsel listed on following page
13
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
16
17
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004; consolidated with
18 AUTHORITY, Case Nos. CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-
516389
19 Petitioner and Plaintiff,
Assigned for all purposes to the
20 v. Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo, Dept. 306
21 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL IN SUPPORT OF METROPOLITAN’S
22 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO
VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S
23 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT MOTION TO EXCLUDE FURTHER
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM JOHN
24 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015 SCOTT AND OTHER UNTIMELY
AND JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10, INADMISSIBLE AND PREJUDICIAL
25 EVIDENCE
Respondents and
26 Defendants. Trial Date: May 16-27, 2022, June 3, & 24,
2022
27
28
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
2
Respondent, Defendant and Cross-
3 Complainant,
4 vs.
5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY,
6
Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross-
7 Defendant.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 MILLER BARONDESS LLP
Mira Hashmall (SBN 216842)
2 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90067
3 Telephone: 310-552-4400
Facsimile: 310-552-8400
4 Email: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com
5 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Colin C. West (SBN 184095)
6 One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105-1596
7 Telephone: (415) 422-1000
Facsimile: (415) 422-1101
8 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com
9 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
1 DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE
2 I, Barry W. Lee, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this
4 Court. I am a partner at the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, counsel for Respondent,
5 Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
6 (“Metropolitan”). I offer this declaration in response to Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant
7 San Diego County Water Authority’s (“San Diego”) Motion to Exclude Further Direct
8 Examination from John Scott and Other Untimely Inadmissible and Prejudicial Evidence. The
9 following facts are within my personal knowledge, and if called upon as a witness, I could and
10 would testify competently to them.
11 2. Attached as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of excerpts from the June 3,
12 2022 trial transcript in this case.
13 3. Attached as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of excerpts from the May 26,
14 2022 trial transcript in this case.
15 4. Attached as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of excerpts from the May 19,
16 2022 trial transcript in this case.
17 5. Attached as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of electronic meet and confer
18 correspondence between counsel for Metropolitan and counsel for San Diego from June 10, 2022
19 through June 20, 2022.
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June 23, 2022 in San
22 Francisco, California
23
24
Barry W. Lee
25
26
401340754.1
27
28
MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004)
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
From: Lee, Barry
To: Warren Braunig; Nicholas S. Goldberg; Dan Jackson; jgreenberg@keker.com; Max Alderman;
sriewerts@keker.com
Cc: Lee, Barry; Rodriguez, Justin Jones; Nordon, Michael; Cooper, Michelle; Beatty,Heather C
Subject: SDCWA v. MWD/Meet & Confer
Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 3:57:17 PM
Attachments: Stipulation re WSR claims.msg
image001.png
Counsel—
We received your June 7, 2022 letter requesting a meet/confer. You asked us to
explain (1) certain aspects of John Scott’s testimony, which was not completed
(and some of what you mention was not covered in his testimony); and (2) any
inaccuracies in certain San Diego exhibits. We do not understand these to be
meet and confer topics, but we are open to discussing your position on this
further.
We would like to discuss the following matters at the meet/confer: (1) who, if
anyone, San Diego is calling in rebuttal; (2) whether San Diego will stipulate
to admissibility of the annual memoranda to all member agencies, including
San Diego, regarding the readiness-to-serve charge, which we sent on June 6,
2022; (3) whether San Diego will stipulate to admissibility of the San Diego
letters and memoranda to the Metropolitan Board/Committees that we
identified prior to Mr. Scott’s testimony; (4) Metropolitan’s intent to offer into
evidence a June 6, 2022 SD-LAFCO video clip and transcript; and (5) the draft
stipulation and proposed order re judgment on the parties’ respective Water
Stewardship Rate claims, which we sent to you on May 10, 2022.
We are available for a call on Tuesday, June 14, 2022, between 4:00 pm-5:00
pm or Wednesday, June 15, 2022, between 4:30 pm-5:30 pm. Let us know what
works for you.
Thank you.
Barry W. Lee
Partner
__________________________
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero Center
30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
D (415) 291-7450 F (415) 291-7519
BWLee@manatt.com
2049 Century Park East
Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
manatt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential
information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its
attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.
From: Rodriguez, Justin Jones
To: "Warren Braunig"; ngoldberg@keker.com; "Julia L. Greenberg"; malderman@keker.com; Dan Jackson
Cc: Lee, Barry; Nordon, Michael; Worger, Thomas; Beatty,Heather C
Subject: Stipulation re WSR claims
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 3:15:43 PM
Attachments: Stip re Resolution of WSR Claims (DRAFT 5-10).docx
Counsel,
A draft stipulation on the WSR claims and cross-claims is attached.
Justin Jones Rodriguez
he/him/his
Partner
__________________________
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2049 Century Park East
Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
D (310) 312-4103 F (310) 996-6966
JJRodriguez@manatt.com
manatt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential
information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its
attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.
1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
JOHN KEKER - # 49092 [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103]
2 jkeker@keker.com
DAN JACKSON - # 216091
3 djackson@keker.com
WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884
4 wbraunig@keker.com
NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614
5 ngoldberg@keker.com
633 Battery Street
6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: 415 391 5400
7 Facsimile: 415 397 7188
8 MARK J. HATTAM - # 173667
mhattam@sdcwa.org
9 General Counsel
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
10 4677 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
11 Telephone: (858) 522-6600
Facsimile: (858) 522-6566
12
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
14 Additional counsel listed on following page
15
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004
AUTHORITY,
19 Consolidated with: Case No. CPF-16-515282
Petitioner and Plaintiff, & CPF-18-516389
20
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
v.
21 ORDER RE: JUDGMENT ON THE
PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
22 RELATING TO THE WATER
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE
23 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED Dept.: 304
BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER
24 Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 13, 2010 TO
25 Date Filed: May 30, 2014
BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2011; and Trial Date: May 16, 2022
DOES 1-10,
26
Respondents and Defendants.
27
28
STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685)
2 Justin Jones Rodriguez (SBN 279080)
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-7450
4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474
Email: bwlee@manatt.com
5 Email: jjrodriguez@manatt.com
6 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Marcia Scully (SBN 80648)
7 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907)
Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745)
8 700 North Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
9 Telephone: (213) 217-6834
Facsimile: (213) 217-6890
10 Email: hbeatty@mwdh2o.com
11 MILLER BARONDESS LLP
Mira Hashmall (SBN 216842)
12 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90067
13 Telephone: 310-552-4400
Facsimile: 310-552-8400
14 Email: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com
15 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Colin C. West (SBN 184095)
16 One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105-1596
17 Telephone: (415) 422-1000
Facsimile: (415) 422-1101
18 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com
19
Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant
20 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant San Diego County Water Authority (“Water
2 Authority”) and Respondent, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of
3 Southern California (“Metropolitan”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective
4 counsel, hereby submit the following stipulation:
5 WHEREAS, on August 28, 2020, the Water Authority filed its operative First Amended
6 Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and
7 Declaratory Relief (the “2014 complaint”) in Case No. CPF-14-514004 (the “2014 case”);
8 WHEREAS, on August 28, 2020, the Water Authority filed its operative Second
9 Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages
10 and Declaratory Relief (the “2016 complaint”) in Case No. CPF-16-515282 (the “2016 case”);
11 WHEREAS, on April 21, 2021, the Water Authority filed its operative Second Amended
12 Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and
13 Declaratory Relief (the “2018 complaint”) in Case No. CPF-18-516389 (the “2018 case”);
14 WHEREAS, portions of the Water Authority’s First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of
15 Action in each of the complaints in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 cases challenge Metropolitan’s
16 inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate – which recovered demand management costs, including
17 water conservation costs – in Metropolitan’s pre-set wheeling rate and in the transportation rate
18 components of the price term as charged under the Parties’ 2003 Amended and Restated
19 Exchange Agreement (“Exchange Agreement”) for calendar years 2015 through 2020;
20 WHEREAS, the Water Authority’s 2018 complaint pleads that Metropolitan suspended
21 collection of charges for demand management costs under the Exchange Agreement for 2019 and
22 2020, and that in January 2020, Metropolitan stated that it would not seek to recover from the
23 Water Authority these suspended costs; the Water Authority’s Second Cause of Action in the
24 2018 complaint requests a declaration that Metropolitan may not seek to recover previously
25 suspended demand management charges;
26 WHEREAS, on March 22, 2021, Metropolitan answered the Water Authority’s
27 complaints in the 2014 and 2016 cases generally denying the Water Authority’s allegations,
3
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 asserted affirmative defenses, and filed cross-complaints in each case against the Water
2 Authority;
3 WHEREAS, on July 29, 2021, Metropolitan answered the Water Authority’s complaint in
4 the 2018 case generally denying the Water Authority’s allegations, asserted affirmative defenses,
5 and filed a cross-complaint against the Water Authority;
6 WHEREAS, Metropolitan’s First Cause of Action in its cross-complaints in the 2014,
7 2016, and 2018 cases seeks a declaration that Metropolitan’s 2015 through 2020 pre-set wheeling
8 rate and its transportation rates as charged under the Exchange Agreement lawfully included the
9 Water Stewardship Rate;
10 WHEREAS, Metropolitan’s Second Cause of Action in its cross-complaint in the 2018
11 case seeks a declaration that Metropolitan has completed all needed actions to establish that it will
12 not seek to recover the Water Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for 2019 and
13 2020;
14 WHEREAS, on June 21, 2017, the Court of Appeal entered a decision in SDCWA v.
15 Metropolitan, 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124 (“SDCWA I”) holding the administrative record before it for
16 the rates in calendar years 2011 through 2014 did not support Metropolitan’s allocation of the
17 Water Stewardship Rate to the pre-set wheeling rate and transportation rate components as
18 charged under the price term of the Exchange Agreement;
19 WHEREAS, on July 18, 2017, the Court of Appeal modified its decision to state: “The
20 legality of the water stewardship fee as a component of Metropolitan’s full-service water rate is
21 not at issue here and we express no opinion on the matter”;
22 WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, Metropolitan’s Board of Directors approved suspension
23 of billing and collection of the Water Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for
24 calendar years 2018 through 2020 and Metropolitan did not charge or collect the Water
25 Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement in those years;
26 WHEREAS, Metropolitan confirmed to the Water Authority that it will not seek to
27 recover the Water Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for 2018 through 2020;
4
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, Metropolitan’s Board repealed the pre-set wheeling
2 rate, which included the Water Stewardship Rate, through repeal of its Administrative Code
3 sections 4119 and 4405 and rescission of Resolution 8520;
4 WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, Metropolitan’s Board directed staff to: (1)
5 incorporate the use of the 2019/20 fiscal-year-end balance of the Water Stewardship Fund to fund
6 all demand management costs in the proposed FYs 2020/21 and 2021/22 Biennial Budget; and (2)
7 not include the Water Stewardship Rate, or any other rates or charges to recover demand
8 management costs, with the proposed rates and charges for calendar years 2021 and 2022;
9 WHEREAS, on April 14, 2020, Metropolitan’s Board adopted rates and charges without
10 including a Water Stewardship Rate for calendar years 2021 and 2022;
11 WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, the Court of Appeal issued SDCWA v. Metropolitan,
12 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5976 (“SDCWA II”), and clarified that its SDCWA I decision
13 regarding the Water Stewardship Rate was not limited to 2011-2014, and that it also prohibits the
14 inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate in Metropolitan’s pre-set wheeling rate and in
15 transportation rates as charged under price term of the Exchange Agreement from 2015 forward;
16 WHEREAS, SDCWA II resolved in the Water Authority’s favor that demand management
17 costs may not be included in Metropolitan’s pre-set wheeling rate and in transportation rates as
18 charged under the price term of the Exchange Agreement from 2015 forward, which is
19 encompassed in this Court’s peremptory writ of mandate in Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830,
20 consolidated with Case No. CPF-12-512466 (“2010 and 2012 cases”), entered August 14, 2020;
21 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Metropolitan paid the Water Authority, through a
22 wire transfer, $35,871,153.70, which consisted of the Water Authority’s Water Stewardship Rate
23 payments under the Exchange Agreement from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, plus pre-
24 judgment interest; the Water Authority agreed that this amount accurately encompassed all Water
25 Stewardship Rate and related interest amounts that it sought from 2015 forward;
26 WHEREAS, Metropolitan has not charged or collected the Water Stewardship Rate under
27 the Exchange Agreement beginning January 1, 2018 and will not do so;
5
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 WHEREAS, Metropolitan ceased having a Water Stewardship Rate for any purposes as of
2 January 1, 2021 and no Water Stewardship Rate has been collected for any purpose since
3 December 31, 2020;
4 WHEREAS, Metropolitan has funded all demand management costs exclusively from its
5 Water Stewardship Fund since January 1, 2021;
6 WHEREAS, the Water Stewardship Fund will be depleted in 2022;
7 WHEREAS, from 2015 until the depletion in 2022, the Water Stewardship Fund has not
8 contained any funds paid under the Exchange Agreement, and payments of the Water
9 Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for 2015 to 2017 were held in the separate
10 Exchange Agreement Set-Aside Fund until they were returned to the Water Authority;
11 WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, Metropolitan’s Board directed staff to incorporate
12 100% of demand management costs in Metropolitan’s Supply Rates for future rates and charges
13 proposals beginning in calendar year 2023;
14 WHEREAS, consequently, for the years at issue in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 cases, and
15 going forward, the Water Authority will incur no charges, retroactively or prospectively, for
16 demand management costs under the Exchange Agreement or through the pre-set wheeling rate;
17 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate that:
18 1. The Court of Appeal’s decision in SDCWA II provides that Metropolitan may not
19 include the Water Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge demand management costs, in its pre-set
20 wheeling rate or in its transportation rates as charged under the Exchange Agreement from 2015
21 forward.
22 2. This Court’s peremptory writ of mandate in the 2010 and 2012 cases encompasses
23 the Court of Appeal’s decision in SDCWA II with respect to charges for demand management
24 costs from 2015 forward.
25 3. Metropolitan has paid all Water Stewardship Rate and pre-judgment interest
26 amounts sought by the Water Authority in its Fourth Cause of Action in the 2014 and 2016
27 complaints.
6
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 4. The following claims regarding the inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate in the
2 pre-set wheeling rate and in the transportation rates as charged under the Parties’ Exchange
3 Agreement are resolved in the Water Authority’s favor: the First, Second, and Third Causes of
4 Action in the Water Authority’s 2014, 2016, and 2018 complaints; the Fourth Cause of Action in
5 the Water Authority’s 2014 and 2016 complaints; and the First Cause of Action in Metropolitan’s
6 2014, 2016, and 2018 cross-complaints.
7 5. Metropolitan did not charge the Water Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge
8 demand management costs, under the Exchange Agreement in 2018 to 2020 and will not do so;
9 consequently, the Water Authority’s Fourth Cause of Action in the 2018 complaint and
10 Metropolitan’s Second Cause of Action in the 2018 cross-complaint are each resolved without a
11 prevailing party.
12 6. The Parties’ stipulation regarding the Water Stewardship Rate claims shall not
13 affect any other cause of action, remaining portion of a cause of action, or defense.
14 7. The Court will determine the effect of this stipulation on prevailing party and fees
15 and costs determinations at the time it enters final judgment in the consolidated cases.
16 Dated: May __, 2022 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
17
18 By:
NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG
19
20 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
21 AUTHORITY
22 Dated: May __, 2022 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
23
24 By:
BARRY W. LEE
25
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
26 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
27
7
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 Dated: April 13, 2022 CITY OF TORRANCE
2
By:
3
PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN
4
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
5 CITY OF TORRANCE
6
Dated: April 13, 2022 OLIVAREZ MADRUGA LEMIEUX
7 O’NEILL, LLP
8
9 By:
STEVEN P. O’NEILL
10
Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest
11 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL
12 WATER DISTRICT, LAS VIRGENES
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WEST
13 BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, and WESTERN MUNICIPAL
14 WATER DISTRICT
15
Dated: April 13, 2022 ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
16
17
By:
18 STEVE ONSTOT
CHRISTINE M. CARSON
19
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
20 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
ORANGE COUNTY
21
22
Dated: April 13, 2022 BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY
23
24 By:
STEVEN M. KENNEDY
25
26 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL
27 WATER DISTRICT
8
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 For good cause, the Court hereby approves the Parties’ stipulation as to the Water
3 Stewardship Rate claims and cross-claims in the operative complaints and cross-complaints (Case
4 Nos. CPF, 14-514004, CPF-16-515682, and CPF-18-516389), and ORDERS that:
5 1. The Court of Appeal’s decision in SDCWA v. Metropolitan, 2021 Cal. App.
6 Unpub. LEXIS 5976 (“SDCWA II”) provides that Metropolitan may not include the Water
7 Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge demand management costs, in its pre-set wheeling rate or
8 in its transportation rates as charged under the Exchange Agreement from 2015 forward.
9 2. This Court’s peremptory writ of mandate in Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830,
10 consolidated with Case No. CPF-12-512466, entered August 14, 2020, encompasses the Court of
11 Appeal’s decision in SDCWA II with respect to charges for demand management costs from 2015
12 forward.
13 3. Metropolitan has paid all Water Stewardship Rate and pre-judgment interest
14 amounts sought by the Water Authority in its Fourth Cause of Action in the 2014 and 2016
15 complaints.
16 4. The following claims regarding the inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate in the
17 pre-set wheeling rate and in the transportation rates as charged under the Parties’ Exchange
18 Agreement are resolved in the Water Authority’s favor: the First, Second, and Third Causes of
19 Action in the Water Authority’s 2014, 2016, and 2018 complaints; the Fourth Cause of Action in
20 the Water Authority’s 2014 and 2016 complaints; and the First Cause of Action in Metropolitan’s
21 2014, 2016, and 2018 cross-complaints.
22 5. Metropolitan did not charge the Water Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge
23 demand management costs, under the Exchange Agreement in 2018 to 2020 and will not do so;
24 consequently, the Water Authority’s Fourth Cause of Action in the 2018 complaint and
25 Metropolitan’s Second Cause of Action in the 2018 cross-complaint are each resolved without a
26 prevailing party.
27
9
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
1 6. The Parties’ stipulation regarding the Water Stewardship Rate claims shall not
2 affect any other cause of action, remaining portion of a cause of action, or defense.
3 7. The Court will determine the effect of this stipulation on prevailing party and fees
4 and costs determinations at the time it enters final judgment in the consolidated cases.
5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated:
Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
8
Judge of the Superior Court
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
10
28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020
CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389
From: Lee, Barry
To: Warren Braunig; Nicholas S. Goldberg; Dan Jackson; jgreenberg@keker.com; Max Alderman;
sriewerts@keker.com
Cc: Lee, Barry; Rodriguez, Justin Jones; Nordon, Michael; Cooper, Michelle
Subject: FW: SDCWA v. MWD/Meet & Confer
Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:16:21 PM
Related Content
in San Francisco County
Ruling
PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING, A DELAWARE VS. ASURE PAYROLL TAX MANAGEMENT LLC, A DELAWARE LLC ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC24615613
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 15. PLAINTIFF PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING's Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 1:30 p.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
A & A GENERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INC., A VS. ARLENE S. TASIM ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC23609755
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 12, 2024, Line 12. DEFENDANT ARLENE TASIM AND ALI TASIM'S Motion For Sanctions Against A A General Building Construction Inc. Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1281.99. Defendants and Cross-Complainants' unopposed Motion for Sanctions in the amount of $8350.00 is granted (CCP section 1281.99), payment to be made within 30 days of the filing of this order. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
YOLANDA JONES ET AL VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC23609805
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 10. 2 - DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC's MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Off calendar. The Quezada declaration fails to show that the parties met and conferred "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" in compliance with CCP 435.5. The parties are ordered to comply with the code. The response to the complaint is now due August 7, 2024. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
EDWARD WESTERMAN VS. FTI CONSULTING, INC. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC24615152
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 12. PLAINTIFF EDWARD WESTERMAN's Motion To Seal. Plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
CLEAR HOMES LLC, A NEW MEXICO LIMITED LIABILITY VS. BRENDAN MICHAEL WEE ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC23607972
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 11, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT BRENDAN WEE, ERIKA HILTON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is Off Calendar - Per request of moving party. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
ELIANE DOS SANTOS VITAL, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC22601133
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, Jul-12-2024, Line 2, PLAINTIFFS ELIANE DOS SANTOS VITAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, and WIDES VITAL DA SILVA'S, AN INDIVIDUAL, Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two. Pro Tem Judge William Lynn, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Parties to appear if the motion remains unresolved. For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to williamclynn@gmail.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JPT)
Ruling
Y.P. VS. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC24613065
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 12. DEFENDANT EARL IGNACIO AND WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'s Motion To Compel Arbitration. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Earl Ignacio's motion to compel arbitration and stay is denied. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS VS. SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP P.C. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC22600572
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 4. PLAINTIFF MARY LEMASTERS' MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Hearing required. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
JOHN P BERNARD VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC23608339
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 8. PLAINTIFF JOHN BERNARD's Motion For Award Of Attorneys Fees, Costs, And Expenses. Off calendar for noncompliance with Local Rule 2.7(B) (courtesy copies). The motion may be re-set for a Mon.-Thurs. after July 24, with papers to bear new hearing date. In meantime, counsel shall meet and confer to resolve their differences. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Preview
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Exempt from filing fee pursuant to Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685) Government Code § 6103 2 Justin Jones Rodriguez (SBN 279080) One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor ELECTRONICALLY 3 San Francisco, California 94111 F I L E D Telephone: (415) 291-7450 Superior Court of California, 4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco Email: bwlee@manatt.com 06/23/2022 5 Email: jjrodriguez@manatt.com Clerk of the Court BY: ERNALYN BURA 6 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Deputy Clerk Marcia Scully (SBN 80648) 7 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907) Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745) 8 700 North Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944 9 Telephone: (213) 217-6834 Facsimile: (213) 217-6890 10 Email: hbeatty@mwdh2o.com 11 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 12 Additional counsel listed on following page 13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 16 17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004; consolidated with 18 AUTHORITY, Case Nos. CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18- 516389 19 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Assigned for all purposes to the 20 v. Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo, Dept. 306 21 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL IN SUPPORT OF METROPOLITAN’S 22 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY’S 23 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT MOTION TO EXCLUDE FURTHER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM JOHN 24 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015 SCOTT AND OTHER UNTIMELY AND JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10, INADMISSIBLE AND PREJUDICIAL 25 EVIDENCE Respondents and 26 Defendants. Trial Date: May 16-27, 2022, June 3, & 24, 2022 27 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 2 Respondent, Defendant and Cross- 3 Complainant, 4 vs. 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, 6 Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross- 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 MILLER BARONDESS LLP Mira Hashmall (SBN 216842) 2 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 3 Telephone: 310-552-4400 Facsimile: 310-552-8400 4 Email: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com 5 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Colin C. West (SBN 184095) 6 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 7 Telephone: (415) 422-1000 Facsimile: (415) 422-1101 8 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com 9 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) 1 DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE 2 I, Barry W. Lee, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this 4 Court. I am a partner at the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, counsel for Respondent, 5 Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 6 (“Metropolitan”). I offer this declaration in response to Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant 7 San Diego County Water Authority’s (“San Diego”) Motion to Exclude Further Direct 8 Examination from John Scott and Other Untimely Inadmissible and Prejudicial Evidence. The 9 following facts are within my personal knowledge, and if called upon as a witness, I could and 10 would testify competently to them. 11 2. Attached as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of excerpts from the June 3, 12 2022 trial transcript in this case. 13 3. Attached as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of excerpts from the May 26, 14 2022 trial transcript in this case. 15 4. Attached as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of excerpts from the May 19, 16 2022 trial transcript in this case. 17 5. Attached as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of electronic meet and confer 18 correspondence between counsel for Metropolitan and counsel for San Diego from June 10, 2022 19 through June 20, 2022. 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 21 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June 23, 2022 in San 22 Francisco, California 23 24 Barry W. Lee 25 26 401340754.1 27 28 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE ISO METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO SAN DIEGO’S MOTION TO ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS (CASE NO. CPF-14-514004) EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D From: Lee, Barry To: Warren Braunig; Nicholas S. Goldberg; Dan Jackson; jgreenberg@keker.com; Max Alderman; sriewerts@keker.com Cc: Lee, Barry; Rodriguez, Justin Jones; Nordon, Michael; Cooper, Michelle; Beatty,Heather C Subject: SDCWA v. MWD/Meet & Confer Date: Friday, June 10, 2022 3:57:17 PM Attachments: Stipulation re WSR claims.msg image001.png Counsel— We received your June 7, 2022 letter requesting a meet/confer. You asked us to explain (1) certain aspects of John Scott’s testimony, which was not completed (and some of what you mention was not covered in his testimony); and (2) any inaccuracies in certain San Diego exhibits. We do not understand these to be meet and confer topics, but we are open to discussing your position on this further. We would like to discuss the following matters at the meet/confer: (1) who, if anyone, San Diego is calling in rebuttal; (2) whether San Diego will stipulate to admissibility of the annual memoranda to all member agencies, including San Diego, regarding the readiness-to-serve charge, which we sent on June 6, 2022; (3) whether San Diego will stipulate to admissibility of the San Diego letters and memoranda to the Metropolitan Board/Committees that we identified prior to Mr. Scott’s testimony; (4) Metropolitan’s intent to offer into evidence a June 6, 2022 SD-LAFCO video clip and transcript; and (5) the draft stipulation and proposed order re judgment on the parties’ respective Water Stewardship Rate claims, which we sent to you on May 10, 2022. We are available for a call on Tuesday, June 14, 2022, between 4:00 pm-5:00 pm or Wednesday, June 15, 2022, between 4:30 pm-5:30 pm. Let us know what works for you. Thank you. Barry W. Lee Partner __________________________ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP One Embarcadero Center 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 D (415) 291-7450 F (415) 291-7519 BWLee@manatt.com 2049 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. From: Rodriguez, Justin Jones To: "Warren Braunig"; ngoldberg@keker.com; "Julia L. Greenberg"; malderman@keker.com; Dan Jackson Cc: Lee, Barry; Nordon, Michael; Worger, Thomas; Beatty,Heather C Subject: Stipulation re WSR claims Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 3:15:43 PM Attachments: Stip re Resolution of WSR Claims (DRAFT 5-10).docx Counsel, A draft stipulation on the WSR claims and cross-claims is attached. Justin Jones Rodriguez he/him/his Partner __________________________ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 D (310) 312-4103 F (310) 996-6966 JJRodriguez@manatt.com manatt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. 1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES JOHN KEKER - # 49092 [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103] 2 jkeker@keker.com DAN JACKSON - # 216091 3 djackson@keker.com WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884 4 wbraunig@keker.com NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614 5 ngoldberg@keker.com 633 Battery Street 6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400 7 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 8 MARK J. HATTAM - # 173667 mhattam@sdcwa.org 9 General Counsel SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 10 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 11 Telephone: (858) 522-6600 Facsimile: (858) 522-6566 12 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 14 Additional counsel listed on following page 15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 18 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004 AUTHORITY, 19 Consolidated with: Case No. CPF-16-515282 Petitioner and Plaintiff, & CPF-18-516389 20 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] v. 21 ORDER RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 22 RELATING TO THE WATER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE 23 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED Dept.: 304 BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER 24 Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 13, 2010 TO 25 Date Filed: May 30, 2014 BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2011; and Trial Date: May 16, 2022 DOES 1-10, 26 Respondents and Defendants. 27 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685) 2 Justin Jones Rodriguez (SBN 279080) One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-7450 4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 Email: bwlee@manatt.com 5 Email: jjrodriguez@manatt.com 6 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Marcia Scully (SBN 80648) 7 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907) Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745) 8 700 North Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944 9 Telephone: (213) 217-6834 Facsimile: (213) 217-6890 10 Email: hbeatty@mwdh2o.com 11 MILLER BARONDESS LLP Mira Hashmall (SBN 216842) 12 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 13 Telephone: 310-552-4400 Facsimile: 310-552-8400 14 Email: mhashmall@millerbarondess.com 15 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Colin C. West (SBN 184095) 16 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 17 Telephone: (415) 422-1000 Facsimile: (415) 422-1101 18 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com 19 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant 20 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 Petitioner, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant San Diego County Water Authority (“Water 2 Authority”) and Respondent, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of 3 Southern California (“Metropolitan”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective 4 counsel, hereby submit the following stipulation: 5 WHEREAS, on August 28, 2020, the Water Authority filed its operative First Amended 6 Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and 7 Declaratory Relief (the “2014 complaint”) in Case No. CPF-14-514004 (the “2014 case”); 8 WHEREAS, on August 28, 2020, the Water Authority filed its operative Second 9 Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages 10 and Declaratory Relief (the “2016 complaint”) in Case No. CPF-16-515282 (the “2016 case”); 11 WHEREAS, on April 21, 2021, the Water Authority filed its operative Second Amended 12 Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and 13 Declaratory Relief (the “2018 complaint”) in Case No. CPF-18-516389 (the “2018 case”); 14 WHEREAS, portions of the Water Authority’s First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of 15 Action in each of the complaints in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 cases challenge Metropolitan’s 16 inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate – which recovered demand management costs, including 17 water conservation costs – in Metropolitan’s pre-set wheeling rate and in the transportation rate 18 components of the price term as charged under the Parties’ 2003 Amended and Restated 19 Exchange Agreement (“Exchange Agreement”) for calendar years 2015 through 2020; 20 WHEREAS, the Water Authority’s 2018 complaint pleads that Metropolitan suspended 21 collection of charges for demand management costs under the Exchange Agreement for 2019 and 22 2020, and that in January 2020, Metropolitan stated that it would not seek to recover from the 23 Water Authority these suspended costs; the Water Authority’s Second Cause of Action in the 24 2018 complaint requests a declaration that Metropolitan may not seek to recover previously 25 suspended demand management charges; 26 WHEREAS, on March 22, 2021, Metropolitan answered the Water Authority’s 27 complaints in the 2014 and 2016 cases generally denying the Water Authority’s allegations, 3 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 asserted affirmative defenses, and filed cross-complaints in each case against the Water 2 Authority; 3 WHEREAS, on July 29, 2021, Metropolitan answered the Water Authority’s complaint in 4 the 2018 case generally denying the Water Authority’s allegations, asserted affirmative defenses, 5 and filed a cross-complaint against the Water Authority; 6 WHEREAS, Metropolitan’s First Cause of Action in its cross-complaints in the 2014, 7 2016, and 2018 cases seeks a declaration that Metropolitan’s 2015 through 2020 pre-set wheeling 8 rate and its transportation rates as charged under the Exchange Agreement lawfully included the 9 Water Stewardship Rate; 10 WHEREAS, Metropolitan’s Second Cause of Action in its cross-complaint in the 2018 11 case seeks a declaration that Metropolitan has completed all needed actions to establish that it will 12 not seek to recover the Water Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for 2019 and 13 2020; 14 WHEREAS, on June 21, 2017, the Court of Appeal entered a decision in SDCWA v. 15 Metropolitan, 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124 (“SDCWA I”) holding the administrative record before it for 16 the rates in calendar years 2011 through 2014 did not support Metropolitan’s allocation of the 17 Water Stewardship Rate to the pre-set wheeling rate and transportation rate components as 18 charged under the price term of the Exchange Agreement; 19 WHEREAS, on July 18, 2017, the Court of Appeal modified its decision to state: “The 20 legality of the water stewardship fee as a component of Metropolitan’s full-service water rate is 21 not at issue here and we express no opinion on the matter”; 22 WHEREAS, on April 10, 2018, Metropolitan’s Board of Directors approved suspension 23 of billing and collection of the Water Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for 24 calendar years 2018 through 2020 and Metropolitan did not charge or collect the Water 25 Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement in those years; 26 WHEREAS, Metropolitan confirmed to the Water Authority that it will not seek to 27 recover the Water Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for 2018 through 2020; 4 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, Metropolitan’s Board repealed the pre-set wheeling 2 rate, which included the Water Stewardship Rate, through repeal of its Administrative Code 3 sections 4119 and 4405 and rescission of Resolution 8520; 4 WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, Metropolitan’s Board directed staff to: (1) 5 incorporate the use of the 2019/20 fiscal-year-end balance of the Water Stewardship Fund to fund 6 all demand management costs in the proposed FYs 2020/21 and 2021/22 Biennial Budget; and (2) 7 not include the Water Stewardship Rate, or any other rates or charges to recover demand 8 management costs, with the proposed rates and charges for calendar years 2021 and 2022; 9 WHEREAS, on April 14, 2020, Metropolitan’s Board adopted rates and charges without 10 including a Water Stewardship Rate for calendar years 2021 and 2022; 11 WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, the Court of Appeal issued SDCWA v. Metropolitan, 12 2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5976 (“SDCWA II”), and clarified that its SDCWA I decision 13 regarding the Water Stewardship Rate was not limited to 2011-2014, and that it also prohibits the 14 inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate in Metropolitan’s pre-set wheeling rate and in 15 transportation rates as charged under price term of the Exchange Agreement from 2015 forward; 16 WHEREAS, SDCWA II resolved in the Water Authority’s favor that demand management 17 costs may not be included in Metropolitan’s pre-set wheeling rate and in transportation rates as 18 charged under the price term of the Exchange Agreement from 2015 forward, which is 19 encompassed in this Court’s peremptory writ of mandate in Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830, 20 consolidated with Case No. CPF-12-512466 (“2010 and 2012 cases”), entered August 14, 2020; 21 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Metropolitan paid the Water Authority, through a 22 wire transfer, $35,871,153.70, which consisted of the Water Authority’s Water Stewardship Rate 23 payments under the Exchange Agreement from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, plus pre- 24 judgment interest; the Water Authority agreed that this amount accurately encompassed all Water 25 Stewardship Rate and related interest amounts that it sought from 2015 forward; 26 WHEREAS, Metropolitan has not charged or collected the Water Stewardship Rate under 27 the Exchange Agreement beginning January 1, 2018 and will not do so; 5 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 WHEREAS, Metropolitan ceased having a Water Stewardship Rate for any purposes as of 2 January 1, 2021 and no Water Stewardship Rate has been collected for any purpose since 3 December 31, 2020; 4 WHEREAS, Metropolitan has funded all demand management costs exclusively from its 5 Water Stewardship Fund since January 1, 2021; 6 WHEREAS, the Water Stewardship Fund will be depleted in 2022; 7 WHEREAS, from 2015 until the depletion in 2022, the Water Stewardship Fund has not 8 contained any funds paid under the Exchange Agreement, and payments of the Water 9 Stewardship Rate under the Exchange Agreement for 2015 to 2017 were held in the separate 10 Exchange Agreement Set-Aside Fund until they were returned to the Water Authority; 11 WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, Metropolitan’s Board directed staff to incorporate 12 100% of demand management costs in Metropolitan’s Supply Rates for future rates and charges 13 proposals beginning in calendar year 2023; 14 WHEREAS, consequently, for the years at issue in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 cases, and 15 going forward, the Water Authority will incur no charges, retroactively or prospectively, for 16 demand management costs under the Exchange Agreement or through the pre-set wheeling rate; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate that: 18 1. The Court of Appeal’s decision in SDCWA II provides that Metropolitan may not 19 include the Water Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge demand management costs, in its pre-set 20 wheeling rate or in its transportation rates as charged under the Exchange Agreement from 2015 21 forward. 22 2. This Court’s peremptory writ of mandate in the 2010 and 2012 cases encompasses 23 the Court of Appeal’s decision in SDCWA II with respect to charges for demand management 24 costs from 2015 forward. 25 3. Metropolitan has paid all Water Stewardship Rate and pre-judgment interest 26 amounts sought by the Water Authority in its Fourth Cause of Action in the 2014 and 2016 27 complaints. 6 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 4. The following claims regarding the inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate in the 2 pre-set wheeling rate and in the transportation rates as charged under the Parties’ Exchange 3 Agreement are resolved in the Water Authority’s favor: the First, Second, and Third Causes of 4 Action in the Water Authority’s 2014, 2016, and 2018 complaints; the Fourth Cause of Action in 5 the Water Authority’s 2014 and 2016 complaints; and the First Cause of Action in Metropolitan’s 6 2014, 2016, and 2018 cross-complaints. 7 5. Metropolitan did not charge the Water Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge 8 demand management costs, under the Exchange Agreement in 2018 to 2020 and will not do so; 9 consequently, the Water Authority’s Fourth Cause of Action in the 2018 complaint and 10 Metropolitan’s Second Cause of Action in the 2018 cross-complaint are each resolved without a 11 prevailing party. 12 6. The Parties’ stipulation regarding the Water Stewardship Rate claims shall not 13 affect any other cause of action, remaining portion of a cause of action, or defense. 14 7. The Court will determine the effect of this stipulation on prevailing party and fees 15 and costs determinations at the time it enters final judgment in the consolidated cases. 16 Dated: May __, 2022 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 17 18 By: NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG 19 20 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER 21 AUTHORITY 22 Dated: May __, 2022 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 23 24 By: BARRY W. LEE 25 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 26 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 27 7 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 Dated: April 13, 2022 CITY OF TORRANCE 2 By: 3 PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN 4 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 5 CITY OF TORRANCE 6 Dated: April 13, 2022 OLIVAREZ MADRUGA LEMIEUX 7 O’NEILL, LLP 8 9 By: STEVEN P. O’NEILL 10 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest 11 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL 12 WATER DISTRICT, LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WEST 13 BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, and WESTERN MUNICIPAL 14 WATER DISTRICT 15 Dated: April 13, 2022 ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP 16 17 By: 18 STEVE ONSTOT CHRISTINE M. CARSON 19 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 20 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY 21 22 Dated: April 13, 2022 BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY 23 24 By: STEVEN M. KENNEDY 25 26 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL 27 WATER DISTRICT 8 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 For good cause, the Court hereby approves the Parties’ stipulation as to the Water 3 Stewardship Rate claims and cross-claims in the operative complaints and cross-complaints (Case 4 Nos. CPF, 14-514004, CPF-16-515682, and CPF-18-516389), and ORDERS that: 5 1. The Court of Appeal’s decision in SDCWA v. Metropolitan, 2021 Cal. App. 6 Unpub. LEXIS 5976 (“SDCWA II”) provides that Metropolitan may not include the Water 7 Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge demand management costs, in its pre-set wheeling rate or 8 in its transportation rates as charged under the Exchange Agreement from 2015 forward. 9 2. This Court’s peremptory writ of mandate in Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830, 10 consolidated with Case No. CPF-12-512466, entered August 14, 2020, encompasses the Court of 11 Appeal’s decision in SDCWA II with respect to charges for demand management costs from 2015 12 forward. 13 3. Metropolitan has paid all Water Stewardship Rate and pre-judgment interest 14 amounts sought by the Water Authority in its Fourth Cause of Action in the 2014 and 2016 15 complaints. 16 4. The following claims regarding the inclusion of the Water Stewardship Rate in the 17 pre-set wheeling rate and in the transportation rates as charged under the Parties’ Exchange 18 Agreement are resolved in the Water Authority’s favor: the First, Second, and Third Causes of 19 Action in the Water Authority’s 2014, 2016, and 2018 complaints; the Fourth Cause of Action in 20 the Water Authority’s 2014 and 2016 complaints; and the First Cause of Action in Metropolitan’s 21 2014, 2016, and 2018 cross-complaints. 22 5. Metropolitan did not charge the Water Stewardship Rate, or otherwise charge 23 demand management costs, under the Exchange Agreement in 2018 to 2020 and will not do so; 24 consequently, the Water Authority’s Fourth Cause of Action in the 2018 complaint and 25 Metropolitan’s Second Cause of Action in the 2018 cross-complaint are each resolved without a 26 prevailing party. 27 9 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 1 6. The Parties’ stipulation regarding the Water Stewardship Rate claims shall not 2 affect any other cause of action, remaining portion of a cause of action, or defense. 3 7. The Court will determine the effect of this stipulation on prevailing party and fees 4 and costs determinations at the time it enters final judgment in the consolidated cases. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo 8 Judge of the Superior Court 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 10 28 STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT ON THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE WATER STEWARDSHIP RATE FOR 2015-2020 CPF-14-514004, CPF-16-515282, CPF-18-516389 From: Lee, Barry To: Warren Braunig; Nicholas S. Goldberg; Dan Jackson; jgreenberg@keker.com; Max Alderman; sriewerts@keker.com Cc: Lee, Barry; Rodriguez, Justin Jones; Nordon, Michael; Cooper, Michelle Subject: FW: SDCWA v. MWD/Meet & Confer Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:16:21 PM