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
Telephone: (415) 291-7450
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco
Email: bwlee@manatt.com 05/17/2021
5 Email: jrodriguez@manatt.com Clerk of the Court
BY: MADONNA CARANTO
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 page following caption
13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
16 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, Case No. CPF-14-514004
Assigned for all purposes to the
17 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo, Dept. 304
18 vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S CASE
19 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL STATEMENT
20 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY
OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE
21 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Date/Time: May 17, 2021; 9:15 a.m.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, 2014
22 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015 AND
JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10,
23
Respondents and Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
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
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP 2
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
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
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP 3
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of Southern
2 California (“Metropolitan”) submits this case management conference statement in advance of the
3 conference scheduled for May 17, 2021. The Court previously conducted a case management
4 conference on April 22, 2021, and instructed the parties to further meet and confer on a discovery
5 plan. Those efforts were interrupted on April 27, 2021 when—prior to further discussing a
6 discovery plan with Metropolitan or the Court and without any advance notice—Petitioner,
7 Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant San Diego County Water Authority (“San Diego”) issued a
8 deposition subpoena for personal appearance and document production to nonparty Linda Waade
9 for May 14, 2021 in each of the five cases between the parties assigned to this Court, including
10 the cases in which final judgment was already entered. 1
11 San Diego issued the subpoena based on bare, but serious allegations that Metropolitan
12 has engaged in purported campaigns to access its privileged documents and to conduct unlawful
13 “opposition research.” In fact, the witness San Diego has subpoenaed—who has not worked at
14 Metropolitan since 2013—has no demonstrated knowledge of the type of conduct San Diego
15 wrongfully claims to have occurred or any information relevant to these cases. But she does have
16 knowledge of the private, personal relationships of her former colleagues. Those relationships
17 were the basis of Ms. Waade’s complaints to Metropolitan years ago and her continuing
18 animosity. San Diego has improper motivations in seeking the testimony which is irrelevant to the
19 cases: use the information in the public sphere to embarrass and harm individuals, while protected
20 by the litigation privilege. Metropolitan has thus opposed the deposition to protect itself and its
21 employees, who are nonparties to this litigation.
22 In two meet and confer discussions, San Diego did not offer a factual basis for its
23 accusations. In ex parte proceedings relating to the subpoena, San Diego admitted that if
24 confidential information had been released, by necessity, it would have come from its own Board
25 members. Given the consumption of time caused by San Diego’s strategically timed and harmful
26 1
San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al.,
San Francisco Superior Court Case Nos. CPF-10-510830 (the “2010 Action”), CPF-12-512466
27 (the “2012 Action”), CPF-14-514004 (the “2014 Action”), CPF-16-515282 (the “2016 Action”),
and CPF-18-516389 (“2018 Action”). The Court entered final judgment post-remand in the 2010
28 and 2012 Actions in August 2020 and the appeal from the judgment is pending.
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP 4
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 subpoenas and fabricated sense of urgency, the parties were not able to meet and confer on a
2 discovery plan beyond exchanging proposals, or timely file a joint status report.
3 I. THE SUBPOENAS AND METROPOLITAN’S PENDING MOTIONS
4 A. Background
5 The parties met and conferred on May 4, 2021. San Diego agreed to reschedule the Waade
6 deposition for May 18, 2021 due to counsel unavailability, and Metropolitan reserved all rights,
7 including the right to move to quash the subpoena and move for a protective order. On May 6,
8 2021, San Diego’s counsel issued amended subpoenas and served amended deposition notices for
9 Ms. Waade’s personal appearance and document production on May 18, 2021. The parties met
10 and conferred again on May 6, 2021, but were unable to reach agreement. San Diego again failed
11 to provide factual support for its allegations. No such factual basis exists, and the testimony San
12 Diego seeks involves sensitive, confidential personnel matters unrelated to issues in the cases.
13 Metropolitan requested an Informal Discovery Conference on May 6, 2021, San Diego
14 joined in the request on May 7, 2021, and the Court scheduled the conference for May 13, 2021 at
15 12:15 p.m. The parties each submitted letter briefs in connection with the conference on May 11,
16 2013. The Court had directed that one joint letter brief be submitted and Metropolitan arranged
17 for the parties to do so, requesting confidentiality in the cover email. San Diego objected to
18 Metropolitan’s request and instead submitted its own letter brief separately and non-
19 confidentially. Metropolitan then was required to submit its own letter brief, confidentially. On
20 May 12, 2021, San Diego filed an ex parte application to shorten time on Metropolitan’s then-
21 anticipated motion to quash and/or motion for a protective order. The ex parte hearing was
22 scheduled to take place just before the IDC.
23 During the telephonic ex parte hearing, San Diego attempted to substantiate its baseless
24 allegations about Metropolitan’s conduct by explaining that people on San Diego’s Board were
25 leaking confidential information. Because no motion had been filed, the Court denied San
26 Diego’s ex parte application to shorten time without prejudice. The Court also took the IDC off
27 calendar and instructed Metropolitan to file any motion regarding the subpoena within ten days.
28 The Court also noted that a motion to quash would be due on May 13, 2021, and a motion for
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP 5
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 protective order seeking to preclude the deposition would need to be filed before the deposition
2 was scheduled to commence.
3 Given the Court’s instructions, Metropolitan filed a motion to quash on May 13, 2021,
4 and a motion for protective order on May 14, 2021, both to be heard on June 10, 2021. The
5 deposition is accordingly off calendar. This case management conference statement follows.
6 B. San Diego’s Renewed Request to Shorten Time
7 San Diego devoted most of its case management conference statement to accusing
8 Metropolitan and its counsel of unethical conduct without any basis, and asking the Court to
9 advance the hearing on Metropolitan’s pending motions. While these allegations lack factual
10 support or credibility and should not have been made by San Diego, Metropolitan has no choice
11 but to treat them as serious. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, San Diego wants to rush
12 through the deposition of Ms. Waade without any protections for Metropolitan or the nonparties
13 whose private information is at stake, to create public information it can disseminate. San Diego’s
14 request should be denied.
15 San Diego has not attempted to meet and confer with Metropolitan about a briefing or
16 hearing schedule regarding Metropolitan’s pending motion to quash and motion for protective
17 order. Both the ex parte application and San Diego’s current request (which does not propose a
18 specific schedule, or indicate when San Diego will file its opposition briefs) were filed without
19 discussion with Metropolitan. San Diego asserted the schedule it wanted on a take it or leave it
20 basis before filing its ex parte application, and San Diego did not attempt to confer with
21 Metropolitan at all before filing the request to shorten time in its case management conference
22 statement. Metropolitan is amenable to a reasonable briefing schedule that provides Metropolitan
23 sufficient time to prepare a reply brief in light of the seriousness of San Diego’s unsupported and
24 baseless allegations.
25 II. DISCOVERY PLAN
26 The parties are nearly in agreement on a case schedule plan. Given the Court’s guidance at
27 the prior case management conference, the parties now agree to complete fact discovery prior to
28 filing motions for summary judgment or adjudication. Metropolitan has built an additional month
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP 6
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 into the calendar—approximately seven and one-half months from today—to ensure that the
2 parties have sufficient time to complete discovery given the claims at issue in the 2014, 2016, and
3 2018 Actions. As Metropolitan explained at the last conference with the Court, Metropolitan
4 cannot determine now the full extent of necessary discovery given the new claims San Diego has
5 raised in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions that were not the subject of significant discovery in
6 the 2010 and 2012 Actions.
7 As a result, Metropolitan proposes modestly more time for discovery than San Diego’s
8 proposal, which would in turn involve modestly pushing back the dispositive motion and expert
9 discovery deadlines, and a reduced period for dispositive motion oppositions (four and one-half
10 weeks), but not changing the trial date or any of the dates for the two and one-half months before
11 trial. Also, given the nature and breadth of San Diego’s document requests in the 2010 and 2012
12 cases (involving years of information from many custodians), the document production deadline
13 Metropolitan proposes is based on document requests served at least 90 days before.
14 The schedule with each party’s proposed dates is as follows:
15
16 Case Event SDCWA MWD
Proposed Date Proposed Date
17
Metropolitan Lodges Administrative Records for June 11, 2021 June 11, 2021
18 All Cases
19
Substantial Completion of Document Production November 1, 2021 December 1, 2021
20 (for RFPs served at (for RFPs served at
least 90 days before) least 90 days before)
21
Close of Fact Discovery December 17, 2021 January 19, 2022
22
File Motion for Summary Judgment or January 12, 2022 January 28, 2022
23 Adjudication
24
Exchange Expert Witness Information per CCP January 20, 2022 February 10, 2022
25 § 2034.260(b) and Declarations per CCP §
2034.260(c)
26
Exchange Supplemental Expert Witness Lists February 18, 2022 February 24, 2022
27 and Declarations per CCP § 2034.280
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP 7
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1
Case Event SDCWA MWD
2 Proposed Date Proposed Date
3 Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment or March 1, 2022 March 1, 2022
Adjudication
4
Reply in Support of Motion for Summary March 16, 2022 March 16, 2022
5 Judgment or Adjudication
6
Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment or March 25, 2022 March 25, 2022
7 Adjudication
8 Close of Expert Discovery April 1, 2022 April 1, 2022
9
Motions in Limine April 8, 2022 April 8, 2022
10
Oppositions to Motions in Limine April 22, 2022 April 22, 2022
11
Witness Lists / Exhibit Lists / Deposition April 29, 2022 April 29, 2022
12 Designations / Pretrial Briefs (25 page limit)
13
Hearing on Motions in Limine / Pretrial Hearing May 9, 2022 May 9, 2022
14
Trial Start May 16 (4–5 May 16-27, 2022
15 trial days)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP 8
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Dated: May 16, 2021 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
2
By:
3 BARRY W. LEE
4
Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant and
5 Cross-Complainant
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
6 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I, Michelle L. Cooper, declare as follows:
3 I am employed in San Francisco County, San Francisco, California. I am over the
age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is MANATT, PHELPS
4 & PHILLIPS, LLP, One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111. On
May 16, 2021, I served the within:
5
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
6 CALIFORNIA’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT
7
on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
10 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE)
& ServeXpress™ by transmitting
By causing each such document to be served by File
true and correct copies to File & ServeXpress™ to
service the parties listed on the Court’s service list.
11
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 16, 2021 at Pleasant
Hill, California.
14
15
16
17 Michelle L. Cooper
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP PROOF OF SERVICE
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 SERVICE LIST
San Diego County Water Authority v. The Metropolitan Water District of So. California, et al.
2 San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CPF-14-514004
3 John Keker Mark J. Hattam, General Counsel
Daniel Purcell SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
4 Dan Jackson 4677 Overland Avenue
Warren A. Braunig San Diego, CA 92123
5 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 858.522.6600/Fax: 858.522.6566
633 Battery Street mhattam@sdcwa.org
6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Attorneys for Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross-
415.391.5400/Fax: 415.397.7188 Complainant
7 jkeker@keker.com; dpurcell@keker.com; SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
djackson@keker.com; wbraunig@keker.com AUTHORITY
8 Attorneys for Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross-
Complainant
9 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY
10
11 Steven M. Kennedy Stephen R. Onstot
BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY Christine M. Carson
12 1839 Commercenter West ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
San Bernardino, CA 92408 2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 475
13 P.O. Box 13130 El Segundo, CA 90245-4916
San Bernardino, CA 92423-3130 310.527.6660/Fax: 310.532.7395
14 909.889.8301/Fax: 909.388.1889 sonstot@awattorneys.com;
skennedy@bmklawplc.com ccarson@awattorneys.com
15 Attorneys for THREE VALLEYS Attorneys for MUNICIPAL WATER
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY
16
Stephen P. OʼNeill Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney
17 Manuel D. Serpa CITY OF TORRANCE
OLIVAREZ MADRUGA LEMIEUX 3031 Torrance Boulevard
18 O'NEILL, LLP Torrance, CA 90503-5039
2659 Townsgate Road, Suite 226 310.618.5810/Fax: 310.618.5813
19 Westlake Village, CA 91361 psullivan@TorranceCA.Gov
805.495.4770/Fax: 805.495.2787 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
20 soneill@omlolaw.com; CITY OF TORRANCE
21 mserpa@omlolaw.com
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
22 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL
23 WATER DISTRICT, LAS VIRGENES
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WEST
24 BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
and WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
25 DISTRICT
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP PROOF OF SERVICE
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
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 Telephone: (415) 291-7450 F I L E D Superior Court of California, 4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco Email: bwlee@manatt.com 05/17/2021 5 Email: jrodriguez@manatt.com Clerk of the Court BY: MADONNA CARANTO 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 page following caption 13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 16 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, Case No. CPF-14-514004 Assigned for all purposes to the 17 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo, Dept. 304 18 vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S CASE 19 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL STATEMENT 20 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE 21 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Date/Time: May 17, 2021; 9:15 a.m. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, 2014 22 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10, 23 Respondents and Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 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 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP 2 ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 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 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP 3 ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Respondent, Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Metropolitan Water District of Southern 2 California (“Metropolitan”) submits this case management conference statement in advance of the 3 conference scheduled for May 17, 2021. The Court previously conducted a case management 4 conference on April 22, 2021, and instructed the parties to further meet and confer on a discovery 5 plan. Those efforts were interrupted on April 27, 2021 when—prior to further discussing a 6 discovery plan with Metropolitan or the Court and without any advance notice—Petitioner, 7 Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant San Diego County Water Authority (“San Diego”) issued a 8 deposition subpoena for personal appearance and document production to nonparty Linda Waade 9 for May 14, 2021 in each of the five cases between the parties assigned to this Court, including 10 the cases in which final judgment was already entered. 1 11 San Diego issued the subpoena based on bare, but serious allegations that Metropolitan 12 has engaged in purported campaigns to access its privileged documents and to conduct unlawful 13 “opposition research.” In fact, the witness San Diego has subpoenaed—who has not worked at 14 Metropolitan since 2013—has no demonstrated knowledge of the type of conduct San Diego 15 wrongfully claims to have occurred or any information relevant to these cases. But she does have 16 knowledge of the private, personal relationships of her former colleagues. Those relationships 17 were the basis of Ms. Waade’s complaints to Metropolitan years ago and her continuing 18 animosity. San Diego has improper motivations in seeking the testimony which is irrelevant to the 19 cases: use the information in the public sphere to embarrass and harm individuals, while protected 20 by the litigation privilege. Metropolitan has thus opposed the deposition to protect itself and its 21 employees, who are nonparties to this litigation. 22 In two meet and confer discussions, San Diego did not offer a factual basis for its 23 accusations. In ex parte proceedings relating to the subpoena, San Diego admitted that if 24 confidential information had been released, by necessity, it would have come from its own Board 25 members. Given the consumption of time caused by San Diego’s strategically timed and harmful 26 1 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case Nos. CPF-10-510830 (the “2010 Action”), CPF-12-512466 27 (the “2012 Action”), CPF-14-514004 (the “2014 Action”), CPF-16-515282 (the “2016 Action”), and CPF-18-516389 (“2018 Action”). The Court entered final judgment post-remand in the 2010 28 and 2012 Actions in August 2020 and the appeal from the judgment is pending. M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP 4 ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 subpoenas and fabricated sense of urgency, the parties were not able to meet and confer on a 2 discovery plan beyond exchanging proposals, or timely file a joint status report. 3 I. THE SUBPOENAS AND METROPOLITAN’S PENDING MOTIONS 4 A. Background 5 The parties met and conferred on May 4, 2021. San Diego agreed to reschedule the Waade 6 deposition for May 18, 2021 due to counsel unavailability, and Metropolitan reserved all rights, 7 including the right to move to quash the subpoena and move for a protective order. On May 6, 8 2021, San Diego’s counsel issued amended subpoenas and served amended deposition notices for 9 Ms. Waade’s personal appearance and document production on May 18, 2021. The parties met 10 and conferred again on May 6, 2021, but were unable to reach agreement. San Diego again failed 11 to provide factual support for its allegations. No such factual basis exists, and the testimony San 12 Diego seeks involves sensitive, confidential personnel matters unrelated to issues in the cases. 13 Metropolitan requested an Informal Discovery Conference on May 6, 2021, San Diego 14 joined in the request on May 7, 2021, and the Court scheduled the conference for May 13, 2021 at 15 12:15 p.m. The parties each submitted letter briefs in connection with the conference on May 11, 16 2013. The Court had directed that one joint letter brief be submitted and Metropolitan arranged 17 for the parties to do so, requesting confidentiality in the cover email. San Diego objected to 18 Metropolitan’s request and instead submitted its own letter brief separately and non- 19 confidentially. Metropolitan then was required to submit its own letter brief, confidentially. On 20 May 12, 2021, San Diego filed an ex parte application to shorten time on Metropolitan’s then- 21 anticipated motion to quash and/or motion for a protective order. The ex parte hearing was 22 scheduled to take place just before the IDC. 23 During the telephonic ex parte hearing, San Diego attempted to substantiate its baseless 24 allegations about Metropolitan’s conduct by explaining that people on San Diego’s Board were 25 leaking confidential information. Because no motion had been filed, the Court denied San 26 Diego’s ex parte application to shorten time without prejudice. The Court also took the IDC off 27 calendar and instructed Metropolitan to file any motion regarding the subpoena within ten days. 28 The Court also noted that a motion to quash would be due on May 13, 2021, and a motion for M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP 5 ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 protective order seeking to preclude the deposition would need to be filed before the deposition 2 was scheduled to commence. 3 Given the Court’s instructions, Metropolitan filed a motion to quash on May 13, 2021, 4 and a motion for protective order on May 14, 2021, both to be heard on June 10, 2021. The 5 deposition is accordingly off calendar. This case management conference statement follows. 6 B. San Diego’s Renewed Request to Shorten Time 7 San Diego devoted most of its case management conference statement to accusing 8 Metropolitan and its counsel of unethical conduct without any basis, and asking the Court to 9 advance the hearing on Metropolitan’s pending motions. While these allegations lack factual 10 support or credibility and should not have been made by San Diego, Metropolitan has no choice 11 but to treat them as serious. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, San Diego wants to rush 12 through the deposition of Ms. Waade without any protections for Metropolitan or the nonparties 13 whose private information is at stake, to create public information it can disseminate. San Diego’s 14 request should be denied. 15 San Diego has not attempted to meet and confer with Metropolitan about a briefing or 16 hearing schedule regarding Metropolitan’s pending motion to quash and motion for protective 17 order. Both the ex parte application and San Diego’s current request (which does not propose a 18 specific schedule, or indicate when San Diego will file its opposition briefs) were filed without 19 discussion with Metropolitan. San Diego asserted the schedule it wanted on a take it or leave it 20 basis before filing its ex parte application, and San Diego did not attempt to confer with 21 Metropolitan at all before filing the request to shorten time in its case management conference 22 statement. Metropolitan is amenable to a reasonable briefing schedule that provides Metropolitan 23 sufficient time to prepare a reply brief in light of the seriousness of San Diego’s unsupported and 24 baseless allegations. 25 II. DISCOVERY PLAN 26 The parties are nearly in agreement on a case schedule plan. Given the Court’s guidance at 27 the prior case management conference, the parties now agree to complete fact discovery prior to 28 filing motions for summary judgment or adjudication. Metropolitan has built an additional month M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP 6 ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 into the calendar—approximately seven and one-half months from today—to ensure that the 2 parties have sufficient time to complete discovery given the claims at issue in the 2014, 2016, and 3 2018 Actions. As Metropolitan explained at the last conference with the Court, Metropolitan 4 cannot determine now the full extent of necessary discovery given the new claims San Diego has 5 raised in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions that were not the subject of significant discovery in 6 the 2010 and 2012 Actions. 7 As a result, Metropolitan proposes modestly more time for discovery than San Diego’s 8 proposal, which would in turn involve modestly pushing back the dispositive motion and expert 9 discovery deadlines, and a reduced period for dispositive motion oppositions (four and one-half 10 weeks), but not changing the trial date or any of the dates for the two and one-half months before 11 trial. Also, given the nature and breadth of San Diego’s document requests in the 2010 and 2012 12 cases (involving years of information from many custodians), the document production deadline 13 Metropolitan proposes is based on document requests served at least 90 days before. 14 The schedule with each party’s proposed dates is as follows: 15 16 Case Event SDCWA MWD Proposed Date Proposed Date 17 Metropolitan Lodges Administrative Records for June 11, 2021 June 11, 2021 18 All Cases 19 Substantial Completion of Document Production November 1, 2021 December 1, 2021 20 (for RFPs served at (for RFPs served at least 90 days before) least 90 days before) 21 Close of Fact Discovery December 17, 2021 January 19, 2022 22 File Motion for Summary Judgment or January 12, 2022 January 28, 2022 23 Adjudication 24 Exchange Expert Witness Information per CCP January 20, 2022 February 10, 2022 25 § 2034.260(b) and Declarations per CCP § 2034.260(c) 26 Exchange Supplemental Expert Witness Lists February 18, 2022 February 24, 2022 27 and Declarations per CCP § 2034.280 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP 7 ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Case Event SDCWA MWD 2 Proposed Date Proposed Date 3 Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment or March 1, 2022 March 1, 2022 Adjudication 4 Reply in Support of Motion for Summary March 16, 2022 March 16, 2022 5 Judgment or Adjudication 6 Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment or March 25, 2022 March 25, 2022 7 Adjudication 8 Close of Expert Discovery April 1, 2022 April 1, 2022 9 Motions in Limine April 8, 2022 April 8, 2022 10 Oppositions to Motions in Limine April 22, 2022 April 22, 2022 11 Witness Lists / Exhibit Lists / Deposition April 29, 2022 April 29, 2022 12 Designations / Pretrial Briefs (25 page limit) 13 Hearing on Motions in Limine / Pretrial Hearing May 9, 2022 May 9, 2022 14 Trial Start May 16 (4–5 May 16-27, 2022 15 trial days) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP 8 ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Dated: May 16, 2021 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2 By: 3 BARRY W. LEE 4 Attorneys for Respondent, Defendant and 5 Cross-Complainant METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 6 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES METROPOLITAN’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Michelle L. Cooper, declare as follows: 3 I am employed in San Francisco County, San Francisco, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is MANATT, PHELPS 4 & PHILLIPS, LLP, One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111. On May 16, 2021, I served the within: 5 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN 6 CALIFORNIA’S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 7 on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 9 10 (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) & ServeXpress™ by transmitting By causing each such document to be served by File true and correct copies to File & ServeXpress™ to service the parties listed on the Court’s service list. 11 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 16, 2021 at Pleasant Hill, California. 14 15 16 17 Michelle L. Cooper 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP PROOF OF SERVICE ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN FRA NCI S CO CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 SERVICE LIST San Diego County Water Authority v. The Metropolitan Water District of So. California, et al. 2 San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CPF-14-514004 3 John Keker Mark J. Hattam, General Counsel Daniel Purcell SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 4 Dan Jackson 4677 Overland Avenue Warren A. Braunig San Diego, CA 92123 5 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 858.522.6600/Fax: 858.522.6566 633 Battery Street mhattam@sdcwa.org 6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Attorneys for Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross- 415.391.5400/Fax: 415.397.7188 Complainant 7 jkeker@keker.com; dpurcell@keker.com; SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER djackson@keker.com; wbraunig@keker.com AUTHORITY 8 Attorneys for Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross- Complainant 9 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 10 11 Steven M. Kennedy Stephen R. Onstot BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY Christine M. Carson 12 1839 Commercenter West ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP San Bernardino, CA 92408 2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 475 13 P.O. Box 13130 El Segundo, CA 90245-4916 San Bernardino, CA 92423-3130 310.527.6660/Fax: 310.532.7395 14 909.889.8301/Fax: 909.388.1889 sonstot@awattorneys.com; skennedy@bmklawplc.com ccarson@awattorneys.com 15 Attorneys for THREE VALLEYS Attorneys for MUNICIPAL WATER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY 16 Stephen P. OʼNeill Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney 17 Manuel D. Serpa CITY OF TORRANCE OLIVAREZ MADRUGA LEMIEUX 3031 Torrance Boulevard 18 O'NEILL, LLP Torrance, CA 90503-5039 2659 Townsgate Road, Suite 226 310.618.5810/Fax: 310.618.5813 19 Westlake Village, CA 91361 psullivan@TorranceCA.Gov 805.495.4770/Fax: 805.495.2787 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 20 soneill@omlolaw.com; CITY OF TORRANCE 21 mserpa@omlolaw.com Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 22 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL 23 WATER DISTRICT, LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WEST 24 BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, and WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 25 DISTRICT 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP PROOF OF SERVICE ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN FRA NCI S CO CASE NO. CPF-14-514004