Preview
1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092
2 jkeker@keker.com
DAN JACKSON - # 216091 ELECTRONICALLY
3 djackson@keker.com
WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884 FILED
Superior Court of California,
4 wbraunig@keker.com County of San Francisco
NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614
5 ngoldberg@keker.com 02/26/2021
633 Battery Street Clerk of the Court
BY: ERNALYN BURA
6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Deputy Clerk
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 92123-1233
11 Telephone: (858) 522-6791
Facsimile: (858) 522-6566
12
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff, EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103]
14
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
17
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004
18 AUTHORITY,
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
19 Petitioner and Plaintiff, STATEMENT FOR MARCH 3, 2021 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
20 v.
Date: March 3, 2021
21 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Time: 9:15 a.m.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL Dept.: 304
22 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED
23 BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
24 ON APRIL 8, 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE Date Filed: May 30, 2014
JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1,
25 2016; and DOES 1-10, Trial Date: Not Yet Set
26 Respondents and Defendants.
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 In advance of the March 3, 2021 Case Management Conference (CMC) in this case and
2 three related cases, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern
3 California, Nos. CPF-10-510830 & CPF-12-512466 (the consolidated “2010/2012 Cases”), San
4 Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, No. CPF-
5 16-515282 (the “2016 Case”), and San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water
6 District of Southern California, No. CPF-18-516389 (the “2018 Case”), Plaintiff/Petitioner San
7 Diego County Water Authority (the Water Authority) and Defendant/Respondent the
8 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) met and conferred on February
9 23, 2021, and hereby submit this joint CMC Statement.
10 I. THE WATER AUTHORITY’S POSITION
11 A. Status of the 2010/2012 Cases
12 On February 10, 2021, the Court entered an order that the Water Authority was the
13 prevailing party in this case for purposes of costs, and awarded the Water Authority $326,918.34
14 in costs. The Court entered a separate order on January 13, 2021 that the Water Authority was
15 the prevailing party on the breach of contract causes of action, pursuant to Civil Code § 1717.
16 The parties have been meeting and conferring to see if they can reach resolution on the
17 amount of the Water Authority’s recoverable attorneys’ fees. On February 11, 2021, the Water
18 Authority provided Metropolitan a detailed analysis and chart of the fees it seeks to recover. The
19 parties then conferred telephonically about those fees on February 23. At Metropolitan’s request,
20 the Water Authority then provided a further explanation of its fees and additional background
21 information to Metropolitan. The Water Authority is hopeful that the parties will be able to reach
22 agreement on the amount of recoverable fees in light of the Court’s prevailing-party order.
23 In the interest of moving things forward, the Water Authority has reserved a hearing date
24 of April 22, 2021, at 9:15 a.m. for a possible Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, should the parties prove
25 unable to agree on the amount of fees.1 The parties will brief the motion, if necessary, on the
26
1
Metropolitan noticed its appeal of the January 13 and February 10 orders on February 25, 2021.
27 This notice of appeal has no impact on the Court’s authority to decide the amount of the fees
award. As the parties previously observed, a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of
28 jurisdiction to hear and decide collateral matters “embraced in the action and not affected by the
judgment or order” (Civ. Code § 916, subdiv. (a)), including “matters related to attorneys’ fees.”
1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 following schedule:
2 Opening Brief: March 19, 2021
3 Opposition Brief: April 2, 2021
4 Reply Brief: April 15, 2021
5 Hearing: April 22, 2021
6 B. Proposed Schedule and Case Plan for the 2014 and 2016 Case
7 On February 16, 2021, the Court overruled Metropolitan’s demurrers to the amended
8 complaints in the 2014 and 2016 cases. Metropolitan’s answers to those complaints will be filed
9 by March 22, 2021. With the pleadings finally set, the Court should set a trial date, before the
10 end of 2021, to resolve these two cases in a consolidated bench trial.2
11 Bringing these cases to trial quickly is imperative. First and foremost, these two cases
12 have now been pending for seven and five years respectively. Between 2015 and 2018, the Water
13 Authority made almost $24 million in payments for demand management costs by Metropolitan’s
14 continued imposition of its Water Stewardship Rate, which the Water Authority now seeks in
15 contract damages across the two cases. The Water Authority’s recovery of damages for these
16 payments (plus interest) should be a straightforward exercise based on the Court of Appeal’s
17 holding that “a water agency’s payments to its member agencies to encourage water conservation
18 is outside the scope of recoverable costs contemplated by the wheeling statutes.” (SDCWA v.
19 MWD (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1150) (emphasis added). In addition, Metropolitan’s failure
20 to account for offsetting benefits, including benefits from the Water Authority’s conserved
21 Imperial Valley water, even after Metropolitan won a ruling from the Court of Appeal that the
22
(9 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Appeal § 20 (2020); Nov. 25, 2020 Jt. Supp. Br. Re Jurisdiction.)
23 Further, as the Court of Appeal has observed on more than one occasion, it is not unusual for the
court’s order setting the amount of the fee award to be “entered after notice of appeal [is] filed.”
24 (Bankes v. Lucas, 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 368–69 (1992), citing Grant v. List & Lathrop (1992) 2
Cal.App.4th 993, 996.) In such cases, “filing a notice of appeal . . . does not prevent the trial
25 court from determining a proper award of attorney fees claimed as costs.” (Id. at p. 369.)
2
26 The Water Authority has proposed to Metropolitan that, after the pleadings are set, the parties
stipulate to consolidation of the 2014 and 2016 cases for purposes of discovery and trial—just as
27 was done for the 2010 and 2012 Cases. Although they challenge different rates for different
years, and do not completely overlap in their causes of action, the two cases present common
28 questions of both fact and law; involve the same parties and counsel; and trial would involve
overlapping evidence and witnesses. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).)
2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 pipelines serving southern California are all one “integrated system” (id. at p. 1146), has forced
2 the Water Authority to pay many millions more that it should not have been charged. The Water
3 Authority will be entitled to additional contract damages based on Metropolitan’s admitted failure
4 to credit the required offsetting benefits, while it continues to unreasonably maintain that cost of
5 service and wheeling laws do not apply to Metropolitan. (See Exchange Agmt. § 5.2; Water
6 Code § 1811, subd. (c).) These illegal charges impact numerous public agencies and their
7 ratepayers and should compel the parties and the Court to resolve them without any further delay.
8 Second, because this case involves a challenge under the Validation Statutes, Code Civ.
9 Proc. § 860 et seq., this case is entitled to calendar preference over other civil trials:
10 Actions brought pursuant to this chapter shall be given preference
over all other civil actions before the court in the matter of setting
11 the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end
that such actions shall be speedily heard and determined.
12
(Id. § 867; see also Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Mar. 2019) § 8.111
13
(“Validation proceedings must be given preference over all other civil actions before the court”).)
14
Third, substantial overlap between these cases and the prior 2010/2012 Cases should
15
streamline determination of the legal issues in the 2014 and 2016 Cases. The Water Authority
16
brought “nearly identical” challenges, in the 2010/2012 Cases, to Metropolitan’s inclusion of
17
demand management costs, recovered by the Water Stewardship Rate, in Metropolitan’s wheeling
18
rate and in the Price charged to the Water Authority under the Exchange Agreement. (Feb 19,
19
2015 Stip. & Order Staying 2014 Case at p. 2; see also Nov. 10, 2016 Stip. and Order Staying
20
2016 Case at p. 2.) Metropolitan has made vague references to supposedly “additional” evidence
21
in the Administrative Records for the later-filed cases,3 but the Court of Appeal’s previous legal
22
rulings still control and provide parameters for further factual development. Although, as the
23
3
24 Despite such suggestions, Metropolitan has not come forward with any such evidence and has
consistently delayed providing the Administrative Records for these challenges to the Water
25 Authority or lodging them with the Court. The Water Authority has been asking Metropolitan to
lodge the administrative records for these cases since 2015—to no avail. Most recently, during
26 the parties’ February 23 meet-and-confer, Metropolitan stated that it would need another three
months to complete preparation and lodging of the administrative records. A delay of that
27 magnitude is hard to fathom, given that the records were fixed in 2014 and 2016; those records
will surely overlap considerably with the administrative records from the 2010/2012 Cases; and
28 the stay in these cases was lifted six months ago. But even if the records are completed and
lodged in May, the parties can easily be ready for trial six months later.
3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 Court has found, “offsetting benefits” was not decided in the 2010/2012 Cases, evidence of
2 offsetting benefits was likewise included in the prior Administrative Records. And the Court of
3 Appeal already held that the “fair compensation” standard of the Wheeling Statutes—which is the
4 source for the “offsetting benefits” requirement—applies to the Price term in the Exchange
5 Agreement. (See SDCWA v. MWD, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1144–51, 1154.) The parties
6 also took extensive discovery, and trial testimony, during the 2010/2012 Cases about the
7 negotiation of the Exchange Agreement and the parties’ contemporaneous understanding of it; the
8 basis for Metropolitan’s wheeling rate; and other historical issues that will be relevant in the 2014
9 and 2016 Cases. In short, while the Water Authority anticipates that some minimal discovery
10 may be needed in these later cases, that discovery should not be extensive.
11 The Water Authority anticipates that trial in these matters can be completed in 3–4 trial
12 days, and the Water Authority proposes that trial commence on November 8, 2021. While the
13 Water Authority is prepared to keep the statutory deadlines for the close of fact and expert
14 discovery, and other pretrial deadlines, the Water Authority is also prepared to meet-and-confer
15 with Metropolitan on an alternate schedule and consider any other procedures the Court may
16 propose to streamline and expedite the resolution of these cases.
17 C. The 2018 Case
18 The 2018 Case is before this Court and remains stayed.4 To avoid duplication of effort
19 and to avoid any potential delay while Metropolitan’s demurrers and motions to strike in the 2014
20 and 2016 Cases were pending, the Water Authority has not yet moved to lift the stay or amend its
21 complaint in this case. Because the complaint has not been amended, Metropolitan has not yet
22 demurred or answered, and the Administrative Record presumably has not been prepared, the
23 2018 Case could trail the 2014 and 2016 Cases by at least 3–6 months, depending on
24 Metropolitan’s response to the amended complaint and its approach to the administrative record.
25 The Water Authority is therefore prepared to maintain the stay in the 2018 Case while the 2014
26 and 2016 Cases are tried. Swift resolution of the 2014/2016 Cases may well obviate the need for
27 trial in the 2018 Case, and in any event will considerably narrow any further proceedings.
28 4
The 2018 Case was assigned to this Department on November 13, 2020.
4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 II. METROPOLITAN’S POSITION
2 Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
3 (“Metropolitan”) submits its portion of this case management conference statement in advance of
4 the conference scheduled for March 3, 2021. Counsel for Metropolitan and San Diego County
5 Water Authority (“San Diego”) met and conferred on February 23, 2021 regarding the matters to
6 be addressed at the March 3, 2021 Case Management Conference.
7 Currently pending before this Court are five related cases brought by Petitioner and
8 Plaintiff San Diego against Metropolitan: San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan
9 Water District of Southern California, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case Nos. CPF-10-
10 510830 (the “2010 Action”), CPF-12-512466 (the “2012 Action”), CPF-14-514004 (the “2014
11 Action”), CPF-16-515282 (the “2016 Action”), and CPF-18-516389 (“2018 Action”).
12 A. The Consolidated 2010 and 2012 Actions
13 This Court entered judgment on August 13, 2020, and issued a peremptory writ of
14 mandate on August 14, 2020. Metropolitan timely filed its notice of appeal on September 11,
15 2020, appealing both the judgment and the writ. Metropolitan timely filed Appellant’s Opening
16 Brief on February 4, 2021. At San Diego’s request, Metropolitan stipulated to a sixty (60) day
17 extension of time for San Diego to file its Respondent’s Brief, which is now due on May 7, 2021.
18 The parties’ cross-motions for determination of prevailing party on the contract claims
19 and related rate challenges under the attorney fees and costs provision in the parties’ contract (the
20 “Exchange Agreement”) was heard on December 16, 2020, after a continuance from November
21 12, 2020. On January 13, 2021, the Court entered its order finding that San Diego was the
22 prevailing party. Metropolitan timely filed its notice of appeal with respect to that order on
23 February 25, 2021.
24 The parties’ cross-motions to strike or to tax costs were heard on January 12, 2021. On
25 February 10, 2021, the Court entered its order granting San Diego’s motion and denying
26 Metropolitan’s motion. Metropolitan timely filed its notice of appeal with respect to that order on
27 February 25, 2021.
28 San Diego recently provided Metropolitan with a summary of the attorneys’ fees and costs
5
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 that it intends to seek as a result of the Court’s determination that it is the prevailing party.
2 Metropolitan and San Diego had an initial discussion about the fees request on February 23, 2021,
3 and San Diego provided Metropolitan with further information on February 24, 2021.
4 Metropolitan agreed to complete its review of San Diego’s summary and advise San Diego and
5 the Court by the March 3, 2021 Case Management Conference whether it opposes the amount of
6 fees and costs that San Diego seeks. The parties are also communicating about a briefing and
7 hearing schedule should they not reach agreement on San Diego’s request.
8 After rejecting Metropolitan’s February 15, 2019 tender of the Exchange Agreement
9 damages award and interest, on February 11, 2021 San Diego requested that this payment be re-
10 sent. Metropolitan made the payment to San Diego on February 16, 2021.
11 B. The 2014 Action and 2016 Action
12 Metropolitan filed demurrers to, or in the alternative, motions to strike, portions of San
13 Diego’s First Amended Petition/Complaint in the 2014 Action and Second Amended
14 Petition/Complaint in the 2016 Action. Metropolitan’s demurrers and alternative motions were
15 heard on February 10, 2021. The Court entered its orders overruling Metropolitan’s demurrers
16 and denying the alternative motions to strike in both cases on February 16, 2021.
17 Metropolitan’s responsive pleadings are currently due on March 8, 2021. San Diego has
18 agreed to a two-week extension of the March 8, 2021 deadline. Subject to this Court’s approval,
19 Metropolitan’s and the member agencies’ pleadings will be filed by March 22, 2021.
20 During meet and confer discussions, Metropolitan notified San Diego that preparation of
21 the 2014 and 2016 administrative records, which is underway, will take at least three months.
22 Preparation of the administrative record for the 2010 Action took approximately 11 months.
23 C. The 2018 Action
24 The 2018 Action was designated complex and assigned to this Court on November 18,
25 2020. San Diego previously indicated that it intended to request that the stay be lifted and it be
26 granted leave to file an amended petition and complaint upon assignment of the case to this Court.
27 San Diego has not yet done so. Metropolitan submits that the stay in the 2018 Action should be
28 lifted, San Diego should provide Metropolitan with a copy of its proposed amended petition and
6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 complaint so that Metropolitan can determine whether it will oppose its filing, and the pleadings
2 should be set prior to setting a trial date in these related cases.
3 D. Metropolitan’s Case Management Proposal
4 In the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Actions, San Diego seeks the recovery of substantial sums
5 under its “offsetting benefits” claims. Carried through the length of the contract, San Diego seeks
6 billions of dollars through its offsetting benefits claims. Metropolitan must be afforded a fair
7 opportunity to undertake the necessary discovery and other steps to prepare and present its
8 defense to this newly-minted multi-billion dollar claim.
9 During the meet and confer discussions, San Diego stated that it intends to request that the
10 Court set a late 2021 trial date for the 2014 and 2016 Actions, which San Diego proposed be
11 consolidated without the 2018 Action. San Diego proposed the 2018 Action remain on stay. As a
12 preliminary matter, the 2014 and 2016 Actions should not be tried separately from the 2018
13 Action. Assuming San Diego’s anticipated amended petition and complaint in the 2018 Action
14 will follow its First Amended Complaint in the 2014 Action and its Second Amended Complaint
15 in the 2016 Action, the claims in all three actions will overlap. It is inefficient and hardly in the
16 interest of judicial economy to prepare for and conduct a consolidated trial for the 2014 and 2016
17 Actions, and then do the same thing again for the 2018 Action. Getting the matters to trial in 2021
18 is simply unrealistic. Whether the trial is in the 2014 and 2016 Actions only, or all three Actions,
19 it is not feasible to try the cases in 2021.
20 Metropolitan proposes the following case management plan for the 2014, 2016 and 2018
21 Actions:
22 (1) the stay should be lifted in the 2018 Action, and San Diego should provide a copy of
23 its proposed amended petition and complaint so that Metropolitan can determine whether it will
24 oppose its filing;
25 (2) the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions should be coordinated or consolidated in the same
26 manner as the 2010 and 2012 Actions, with the 2014 Action as the lead case; and
27 (3) The parties should meet and confer to develop a joint discovery plan (including both
28 percipient and expert witnesses), determine whether dispositive motion practice is appropriate,
7
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 and assess the amount of time needed to prepare for trial, and then propose a realistic trial date.
2
3 Dated: February 26, 2021 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
4
5 By:
Warren A. Braunig
6
Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff
7 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY
8
9 Dated: February 26, 2021 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
10
11 /s/ Barry W. Lee
By:
Barry W. Lee
12
13 Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
14 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the office of a
member of the bar of this court at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the
3
age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Keker, Van
4 Nest & Peters LLP, 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-1809.
5 On February 26, 2021, I served the following document(s):
6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR MARCH 3, 2021 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
7
by serving a true copy of the above-described documents in the following manner:
8
9
BY FILE & SERVEXPRESS
10
11 On the date executed below, I electronically served or served via U.S. Mail the documents
described above via File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction
12
Receipt located on the via File & ServeXpress website.
13
Barry W. Lee Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent
14 Justin Jones Rodriguez The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP California
15 One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
16
Email: bwlee@manatt.com
17 jjrodriguez@manatt.com
18 Colin C. West Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent
James J. Dragna The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
19 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP California
One Market, Spear Street Tower
20
San Francisco, CA 94105
21 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com
jim.dragna@morganlewis.com
22
Marcia Scully Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent
23 Heather C. Beatty The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
24 Patricia Quilizapa California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
25 California
700 North Alameda Street
26 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
Email: mscully@mwdh2o.com
27 hbeatty@mwdh2o.com
28 pquilizapa@mwdh2o.com
9
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 Joseph Vanderhorst Attorneys for Respondent
VIA U.S. MAIL The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
2 California
3
Patrick Q. Sullivan Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
4 City of Torrance City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Blvd.
5 Torrance, CA 90503-5059
Email: psullivan@torranceCA.Gov
6
7
David J. Aleshire Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
8 Stephen R. Onstot Municipal Water District of Orange County
Christine M. Carson
9 Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
10 18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
11 Email: daleshire@awattorneys.com
sonstot@awattorneys.com
12 ccarson@awattorneys.com
13 Steven M. Kennedy Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy Three Valleys Municipal Water District
14
P.O. Box 13130
15 San Bernardino, CA 92423-3130
Email: skennedy@bmbklawoffice.com
16
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
17 Joseph A. Brajevich City of Los Angeles
Tina Shim
18 Julie C. Riley
19 Melanie A. Tory
City of Los Angeles
20 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100
21 Email: Mike.Feuer@lacity.org
joseph.brajevich@ladwp.com
22
tina.shim@ladwp.com
23 julie.riley@ladwp.com
melanie.tory@ladwp.com
24
25
26
27
28
10
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
1 Steven P. O’Neill Real Parties in Interest
Manuel D. Serpa Foothill Municipal Water District; Las
2 Olivarez Madruga Lemieux O’Neill, LLP Virgenes Municipal Water District; West
3 2659 Townsgate Road, Suite 226 Basin Municipal Water District; Eastern
Westlake Village, CA 91361 Municipal Water District; Western Municipal
4 Email: soneill@omlolaw.com Water District
mserpa@omlolaw.com
5
6 Executed on February 26, 2021, at San Francisco, California.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
8 and correct.
9
10
11
Elizabeth Myrddin
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case No. CPF-14-514004
1657307
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 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP JOHN W. KEKER - # 49092 2 jkeker@keker.com DAN JACKSON - # 216091 ELECTRONICALLY 3 djackson@keker.com WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884 FILED Superior Court of California, 4 wbraunig@keker.com County of San Francisco NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614 5 ngoldberg@keker.com 02/26/2021 633 Battery Street Clerk of the Court BY: ERNALYN BURA 6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Deputy Clerk 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 92123-1233 11 Telephone: (858) 522-6791 Facsimile: (858) 522-6566 12 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff, EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 13 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103] 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004 18 AUTHORITY, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 19 Petitioner and Plaintiff, STATEMENT FOR MARCH 3, 2021 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 20 v. Date: March 3, 2021 21 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Time: 9:15 a.m. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL Dept.: 304 22 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED 23 BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 24 ON APRIL 8, 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE Date Filed: May 30, 2014 JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1, 25 2016; and DOES 1-10, Trial Date: Not Yet Set 26 Respondents and Defendants. 27 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 In advance of the March 3, 2021 Case Management Conference (CMC) in this case and 2 three related cases, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern 3 California, Nos. CPF-10-510830 & CPF-12-512466 (the consolidated “2010/2012 Cases”), San 4 Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, No. CPF- 5 16-515282 (the “2016 Case”), and San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water 6 District of Southern California, No. CPF-18-516389 (the “2018 Case”), Plaintiff/Petitioner San 7 Diego County Water Authority (the Water Authority) and Defendant/Respondent the 8 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) met and conferred on February 9 23, 2021, and hereby submit this joint CMC Statement. 10 I. THE WATER AUTHORITY’S POSITION 11 A. Status of the 2010/2012 Cases 12 On February 10, 2021, the Court entered an order that the Water Authority was the 13 prevailing party in this case for purposes of costs, and awarded the Water Authority $326,918.34 14 in costs. The Court entered a separate order on January 13, 2021 that the Water Authority was 15 the prevailing party on the breach of contract causes of action, pursuant to Civil Code § 1717. 16 The parties have been meeting and conferring to see if they can reach resolution on the 17 amount of the Water Authority’s recoverable attorneys’ fees. On February 11, 2021, the Water 18 Authority provided Metropolitan a detailed analysis and chart of the fees it seeks to recover. The 19 parties then conferred telephonically about those fees on February 23. At Metropolitan’s request, 20 the Water Authority then provided a further explanation of its fees and additional background 21 information to Metropolitan. The Water Authority is hopeful that the parties will be able to reach 22 agreement on the amount of recoverable fees in light of the Court’s prevailing-party order. 23 In the interest of moving things forward, the Water Authority has reserved a hearing date 24 of April 22, 2021, at 9:15 a.m. for a possible Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, should the parties prove 25 unable to agree on the amount of fees.1 The parties will brief the motion, if necessary, on the 26 1 Metropolitan noticed its appeal of the January 13 and February 10 orders on February 25, 2021. 27 This notice of appeal has no impact on the Court’s authority to decide the amount of the fees award. As the parties previously observed, a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of 28 jurisdiction to hear and decide collateral matters “embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order” (Civ. Code § 916, subdiv. (a)), including “matters related to attorneys’ fees.” 1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 following schedule: 2 Opening Brief: March 19, 2021 3 Opposition Brief: April 2, 2021 4 Reply Brief: April 15, 2021 5 Hearing: April 22, 2021 6 B. Proposed Schedule and Case Plan for the 2014 and 2016 Case 7 On February 16, 2021, the Court overruled Metropolitan’s demurrers to the amended 8 complaints in the 2014 and 2016 cases. Metropolitan’s answers to those complaints will be filed 9 by March 22, 2021. With the pleadings finally set, the Court should set a trial date, before the 10 end of 2021, to resolve these two cases in a consolidated bench trial.2 11 Bringing these cases to trial quickly is imperative. First and foremost, these two cases 12 have now been pending for seven and five years respectively. Between 2015 and 2018, the Water 13 Authority made almost $24 million in payments for demand management costs by Metropolitan’s 14 continued imposition of its Water Stewardship Rate, which the Water Authority now seeks in 15 contract damages across the two cases. The Water Authority’s recovery of damages for these 16 payments (plus interest) should be a straightforward exercise based on the Court of Appeal’s 17 holding that “a water agency’s payments to its member agencies to encourage water conservation 18 is outside the scope of recoverable costs contemplated by the wheeling statutes.” (SDCWA v. 19 MWD (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1150) (emphasis added). In addition, Metropolitan’s failure 20 to account for offsetting benefits, including benefits from the Water Authority’s conserved 21 Imperial Valley water, even after Metropolitan won a ruling from the Court of Appeal that the 22 (9 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Appeal § 20 (2020); Nov. 25, 2020 Jt. Supp. Br. Re Jurisdiction.) 23 Further, as the Court of Appeal has observed on more than one occasion, it is not unusual for the court’s order setting the amount of the fee award to be “entered after notice of appeal [is] filed.” 24 (Bankes v. Lucas, 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 368–69 (1992), citing Grant v. List & Lathrop (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 993, 996.) In such cases, “filing a notice of appeal . . . does not prevent the trial 25 court from determining a proper award of attorney fees claimed as costs.” (Id. at p. 369.) 2 26 The Water Authority has proposed to Metropolitan that, after the pleadings are set, the parties stipulate to consolidation of the 2014 and 2016 cases for purposes of discovery and trial—just as 27 was done for the 2010 and 2012 Cases. Although they challenge different rates for different years, and do not completely overlap in their causes of action, the two cases present common 28 questions of both fact and law; involve the same parties and counsel; and trial would involve overlapping evidence and witnesses. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a).) 2 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 pipelines serving southern California are all one “integrated system” (id. at p. 1146), has forced 2 the Water Authority to pay many millions more that it should not have been charged. The Water 3 Authority will be entitled to additional contract damages based on Metropolitan’s admitted failure 4 to credit the required offsetting benefits, while it continues to unreasonably maintain that cost of 5 service and wheeling laws do not apply to Metropolitan. (See Exchange Agmt. § 5.2; Water 6 Code § 1811, subd. (c).) These illegal charges impact numerous public agencies and their 7 ratepayers and should compel the parties and the Court to resolve them without any further delay. 8 Second, because this case involves a challenge under the Validation Statutes, Code Civ. 9 Proc. § 860 et seq., this case is entitled to calendar preference over other civil trials: 10 Actions brought pursuant to this chapter shall be given preference over all other civil actions before the court in the matter of setting 11 the same for hearing or trial, and in hearing the same, to the end that such actions shall be speedily heard and determined. 12 (Id. § 867; see also Cal. Judges Benchbook Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Mar. 2019) § 8.111 13 (“Validation proceedings must be given preference over all other civil actions before the court”).) 14 Third, substantial overlap between these cases and the prior 2010/2012 Cases should 15 streamline determination of the legal issues in the 2014 and 2016 Cases. The Water Authority 16 brought “nearly identical” challenges, in the 2010/2012 Cases, to Metropolitan’s inclusion of 17 demand management costs, recovered by the Water Stewardship Rate, in Metropolitan’s wheeling 18 rate and in the Price charged to the Water Authority under the Exchange Agreement. (Feb 19, 19 2015 Stip. & Order Staying 2014 Case at p. 2; see also Nov. 10, 2016 Stip. and Order Staying 20 2016 Case at p. 2.) Metropolitan has made vague references to supposedly “additional” evidence 21 in the Administrative Records for the later-filed cases,3 but the Court of Appeal’s previous legal 22 rulings still control and provide parameters for further factual development. Although, as the 23 3 24 Despite such suggestions, Metropolitan has not come forward with any such evidence and has consistently delayed providing the Administrative Records for these challenges to the Water 25 Authority or lodging them with the Court. The Water Authority has been asking Metropolitan to lodge the administrative records for these cases since 2015—to no avail. Most recently, during 26 the parties’ February 23 meet-and-confer, Metropolitan stated that it would need another three months to complete preparation and lodging of the administrative records. A delay of that 27 magnitude is hard to fathom, given that the records were fixed in 2014 and 2016; those records will surely overlap considerably with the administrative records from the 2010/2012 Cases; and 28 the stay in these cases was lifted six months ago. But even if the records are completed and lodged in May, the parties can easily be ready for trial six months later. 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 Court has found, “offsetting benefits” was not decided in the 2010/2012 Cases, evidence of 2 offsetting benefits was likewise included in the prior Administrative Records. And the Court of 3 Appeal already held that the “fair compensation” standard of the Wheeling Statutes—which is the 4 source for the “offsetting benefits” requirement—applies to the Price term in the Exchange 5 Agreement. (See SDCWA v. MWD, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1144–51, 1154.) The parties 6 also took extensive discovery, and trial testimony, during the 2010/2012 Cases about the 7 negotiation of the Exchange Agreement and the parties’ contemporaneous understanding of it; the 8 basis for Metropolitan’s wheeling rate; and other historical issues that will be relevant in the 2014 9 and 2016 Cases. In short, while the Water Authority anticipates that some minimal discovery 10 may be needed in these later cases, that discovery should not be extensive. 11 The Water Authority anticipates that trial in these matters can be completed in 3–4 trial 12 days, and the Water Authority proposes that trial commence on November 8, 2021. While the 13 Water Authority is prepared to keep the statutory deadlines for the close of fact and expert 14 discovery, and other pretrial deadlines, the Water Authority is also prepared to meet-and-confer 15 with Metropolitan on an alternate schedule and consider any other procedures the Court may 16 propose to streamline and expedite the resolution of these cases. 17 C. The 2018 Case 18 The 2018 Case is before this Court and remains stayed.4 To avoid duplication of effort 19 and to avoid any potential delay while Metropolitan’s demurrers and motions to strike in the 2014 20 and 2016 Cases were pending, the Water Authority has not yet moved to lift the stay or amend its 21 complaint in this case. Because the complaint has not been amended, Metropolitan has not yet 22 demurred or answered, and the Administrative Record presumably has not been prepared, the 23 2018 Case could trail the 2014 and 2016 Cases by at least 3–6 months, depending on 24 Metropolitan’s response to the amended complaint and its approach to the administrative record. 25 The Water Authority is therefore prepared to maintain the stay in the 2018 Case while the 2014 26 and 2016 Cases are tried. Swift resolution of the 2014/2016 Cases may well obviate the need for 27 trial in the 2018 Case, and in any event will considerably narrow any further proceedings. 28 4 The 2018 Case was assigned to this Department on November 13, 2020. 4 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 II. METROPOLITAN’S POSITION 2 Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 3 (“Metropolitan”) submits its portion of this case management conference statement in advance of 4 the conference scheduled for March 3, 2021. Counsel for Metropolitan and San Diego County 5 Water Authority (“San Diego”) met and conferred on February 23, 2021 regarding the matters to 6 be addressed at the March 3, 2021 Case Management Conference. 7 Currently pending before this Court are five related cases brought by Petitioner and 8 Plaintiff San Diego against Metropolitan: San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan 9 Water District of Southern California, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case Nos. CPF-10- 10 510830 (the “2010 Action”), CPF-12-512466 (the “2012 Action”), CPF-14-514004 (the “2014 11 Action”), CPF-16-515282 (the “2016 Action”), and CPF-18-516389 (“2018 Action”). 12 A. The Consolidated 2010 and 2012 Actions 13 This Court entered judgment on August 13, 2020, and issued a peremptory writ of 14 mandate on August 14, 2020. Metropolitan timely filed its notice of appeal on September 11, 15 2020, appealing both the judgment and the writ. Metropolitan timely filed Appellant’s Opening 16 Brief on February 4, 2021. At San Diego’s request, Metropolitan stipulated to a sixty (60) day 17 extension of time for San Diego to file its Respondent’s Brief, which is now due on May 7, 2021. 18 The parties’ cross-motions for determination of prevailing party on the contract claims 19 and related rate challenges under the attorney fees and costs provision in the parties’ contract (the 20 “Exchange Agreement”) was heard on December 16, 2020, after a continuance from November 21 12, 2020. On January 13, 2021, the Court entered its order finding that San Diego was the 22 prevailing party. Metropolitan timely filed its notice of appeal with respect to that order on 23 February 25, 2021. 24 The parties’ cross-motions to strike or to tax costs were heard on January 12, 2021. On 25 February 10, 2021, the Court entered its order granting San Diego’s motion and denying 26 Metropolitan’s motion. Metropolitan timely filed its notice of appeal with respect to that order on 27 February 25, 2021. 28 San Diego recently provided Metropolitan with a summary of the attorneys’ fees and costs 5 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 that it intends to seek as a result of the Court’s determination that it is the prevailing party. 2 Metropolitan and San Diego had an initial discussion about the fees request on February 23, 2021, 3 and San Diego provided Metropolitan with further information on February 24, 2021. 4 Metropolitan agreed to complete its review of San Diego’s summary and advise San Diego and 5 the Court by the March 3, 2021 Case Management Conference whether it opposes the amount of 6 fees and costs that San Diego seeks. The parties are also communicating about a briefing and 7 hearing schedule should they not reach agreement on San Diego’s request. 8 After rejecting Metropolitan’s February 15, 2019 tender of the Exchange Agreement 9 damages award and interest, on February 11, 2021 San Diego requested that this payment be re- 10 sent. Metropolitan made the payment to San Diego on February 16, 2021. 11 B. The 2014 Action and 2016 Action 12 Metropolitan filed demurrers to, or in the alternative, motions to strike, portions of San 13 Diego’s First Amended Petition/Complaint in the 2014 Action and Second Amended 14 Petition/Complaint in the 2016 Action. Metropolitan’s demurrers and alternative motions were 15 heard on February 10, 2021. The Court entered its orders overruling Metropolitan’s demurrers 16 and denying the alternative motions to strike in both cases on February 16, 2021. 17 Metropolitan’s responsive pleadings are currently due on March 8, 2021. San Diego has 18 agreed to a two-week extension of the March 8, 2021 deadline. Subject to this Court’s approval, 19 Metropolitan’s and the member agencies’ pleadings will be filed by March 22, 2021. 20 During meet and confer discussions, Metropolitan notified San Diego that preparation of 21 the 2014 and 2016 administrative records, which is underway, will take at least three months. 22 Preparation of the administrative record for the 2010 Action took approximately 11 months. 23 C. The 2018 Action 24 The 2018 Action was designated complex and assigned to this Court on November 18, 25 2020. San Diego previously indicated that it intended to request that the stay be lifted and it be 26 granted leave to file an amended petition and complaint upon assignment of the case to this Court. 27 San Diego has not yet done so. Metropolitan submits that the stay in the 2018 Action should be 28 lifted, San Diego should provide Metropolitan with a copy of its proposed amended petition and 6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 complaint so that Metropolitan can determine whether it will oppose its filing, and the pleadings 2 should be set prior to setting a trial date in these related cases. 3 D. Metropolitan’s Case Management Proposal 4 In the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Actions, San Diego seeks the recovery of substantial sums 5 under its “offsetting benefits” claims. Carried through the length of the contract, San Diego seeks 6 billions of dollars through its offsetting benefits claims. Metropolitan must be afforded a fair 7 opportunity to undertake the necessary discovery and other steps to prepare and present its 8 defense to this newly-minted multi-billion dollar claim. 9 During the meet and confer discussions, San Diego stated that it intends to request that the 10 Court set a late 2021 trial date for the 2014 and 2016 Actions, which San Diego proposed be 11 consolidated without the 2018 Action. San Diego proposed the 2018 Action remain on stay. As a 12 preliminary matter, the 2014 and 2016 Actions should not be tried separately from the 2018 13 Action. Assuming San Diego’s anticipated amended petition and complaint in the 2018 Action 14 will follow its First Amended Complaint in the 2014 Action and its Second Amended Complaint 15 in the 2016 Action, the claims in all three actions will overlap. It is inefficient and hardly in the 16 interest of judicial economy to prepare for and conduct a consolidated trial for the 2014 and 2016 17 Actions, and then do the same thing again for the 2018 Action. Getting the matters to trial in 2021 18 is simply unrealistic. Whether the trial is in the 2014 and 2016 Actions only, or all three Actions, 19 it is not feasible to try the cases in 2021. 20 Metropolitan proposes the following case management plan for the 2014, 2016 and 2018 21 Actions: 22 (1) the stay should be lifted in the 2018 Action, and San Diego should provide a copy of 23 its proposed amended petition and complaint so that Metropolitan can determine whether it will 24 oppose its filing; 25 (2) the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions should be coordinated or consolidated in the same 26 manner as the 2010 and 2012 Actions, with the 2014 Action as the lead case; and 27 (3) The parties should meet and confer to develop a joint discovery plan (including both 28 percipient and expert witnesses), determine whether dispositive motion practice is appropriate, 7 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 and assess the amount of time needed to prepare for trial, and then propose a realistic trial date. 2 3 Dated: February 26, 2021 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 4 5 By: Warren A. Braunig 6 Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff 7 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 8 9 Dated: February 26, 2021 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 10 11 /s/ Barry W. Lee By: Barry W. Lee 12 13 Attorneys for Respondent/Defendant METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 14 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the 3 age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Keker, Van 4 Nest & Peters LLP, 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-1809. 5 On February 26, 2021, I served the following document(s): 6 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FOR MARCH 3, 2021 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 7 by serving a true copy of the above-described documents in the following manner: 8 9 BY FILE & SERVEXPRESS 10 11 On the date executed below, I electronically served or served via U.S. Mail the documents described above via File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction 12 Receipt located on the via File & ServeXpress website. 13 Barry W. Lee Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent 14 Justin Jones Rodriguez The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP California 15 One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 16 Email: bwlee@manatt.com 17 jjrodriguez@manatt.com 18 Colin C. West Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent James J. Dragna The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 19 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP California One Market, Spear Street Tower 20 San Francisco, CA 94105 21 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com jim.dragna@morganlewis.com 22 Marcia Scully Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent 23 Heather C. Beatty The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 24 Patricia Quilizapa California The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 25 California 700 North Alameda Street 26 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944 Email: mscully@mwdh2o.com 27 hbeatty@mwdh2o.com 28 pquilizapa@mwdh2o.com 9 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 Joseph Vanderhorst Attorneys for Respondent VIA U.S. MAIL The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 2 California 3 Patrick Q. Sullivan Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 4 City of Torrance City of Torrance 3031 Torrance Blvd. 5 Torrance, CA 90503-5059 Email: psullivan@torranceCA.Gov 6 7 David J. Aleshire Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 8 Stephen R. Onstot Municipal Water District of Orange County Christine M. Carson 9 Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 10 18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 11 Email: daleshire@awattorneys.com sonstot@awattorneys.com 12 ccarson@awattorneys.com 13 Steven M. Kennedy Attorneys for Real Party in Interest Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy Three Valleys Municipal Water District 14 P.O. Box 13130 15 San Bernardino, CA 92423-3130 Email: skennedy@bmbklawoffice.com 16 Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 17 Joseph A. Brajevich City of Los Angeles Tina Shim 18 Julie C. Riley 19 Melanie A. Tory City of Los Angeles 20 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100 21 Email: Mike.Feuer@lacity.org joseph.brajevich@ladwp.com 22 tina.shim@ladwp.com 23 julie.riley@ladwp.com melanie.tory@ladwp.com 24 25 26 27 28 10 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307 1 Steven P. O’Neill Real Parties in Interest Manuel D. Serpa Foothill Municipal Water District; Las 2 Olivarez Madruga Lemieux O’Neill, LLP Virgenes Municipal Water District; West 3 2659 Townsgate Road, Suite 226 Basin Municipal Water District; Eastern Westlake Village, CA 91361 Municipal Water District; Western Municipal 4 Email: soneill@omlolaw.com Water District mserpa@omlolaw.com 5 6 Executed on February 26, 2021, at San Francisco, California. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true 8 and correct. 9 10 11 Elizabeth Myrddin 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No. CPF-14-514004 1657307