Preview
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Exempt from filing fee pursuant to
Phillip R. Kaplan (SBN 76949) Government Code § 6103
2 Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685)
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: pkaplan@manatt.com 08/12/2020
5 Email: bwlee@manatt.com Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
Deputy Clerk
6 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Colin C. West (SBN 184095)
7 One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105-1596
8 Telephone: (415) 422-1000
Facsimile: (415) 422-1101
9 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com
10 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Marcia Scully (SBN 80648)
11 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907)
Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745)
12 700 North Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
13 Telephone: (213) 217-6834
Facsimile: (213) 217-6890
14 Email: pquilizapa@mwdh2o.com
15 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004
19 AUTHORITY,
Assigned for all purposes to the
20 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Hon. Ann-Christine Massullo, Dept. 304
21 v. DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE
IN SUPPORT OF METROPOLITAN
22 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL CALIFORNIA’S OPPOSITION TO
23 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY AND
OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
24 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF COMPLAINT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8,
25 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2016; Date: August 25, 2020
and DOES 1-10, Time: 10:00 a.m.
26
Respondents and Defendants.
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP LEE DECLARATION ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE
2 I, Barry W. Lee, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all of the courts of the
4 State of California, and I am a partner in the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, counsel
5 of record in this action for Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern
6 California (“Metropolitan”). I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called as a
7 witness in the action, I could and would testify competently to them. As to the matters set forth on
8 information and belief, I believe them to be true.
9 2. On April 25, 2016, San Diego filed Notices of Related Case, giving notice that San
10 Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San
11 Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-16-515282 (the 2016 Action): (1) “involves the same
12 parties and is based on the same or similar claims,” and (2) “arises from the same or substantially
13 identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially
14 identical questions of law or fact,” as three other cases between the same parties: Case No. CPF-
15 10-510830 (the “2010 Action”), Case No. CPF-12-512466 (the “2012 Action”), and CPF-14-
16 514004 (the “2014 Action”). Attached as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C are true and
17 correct copies of each of the Notices filed in each case. 1
18 3. On February 19, 2015, the parties stipulated to a stay of the 2014 Action while the
19 2010 and 2012 Actions are pending. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Joint
20 Stipulation and Order Staying the Case.
21 4. On November 20, 2015, San Diego moved to lift the stay in the 2014 Action. On
22 December 21, 2015, Judge Karnow denied the motion. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct
23 copy of the Court Order Denying San Diego’s Motion for Partial Lifting of Stay.
24 5. On November 10, 2016, the parties stipulated to San Diego filing a First Amended
25 Complaint and staying the 2016 Action. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the
26
1
At the time San Diego filed its notices of related case, the 2016 Action was pending in Los
27 Angeles County Superior Court as Case No. BS161729. The parties later agreed to transfer the
case to San Francisco Superior Court where it was designated complex and ultimately assigned to
28 this Court for all purposes.
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP LEE DECLARATION ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 Stipulation Re: Filing of Amended Complaint and Stay of Action.
2 6. On July 24, 2018—after the 2010 and 2012 Actions were remanded by the Court
3 of Appeal to this Court—the parties again agreed to stay the 2016 Action pending final resolution
4 of the 2010 and 2012 Actions. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Stipulation
5 Re: Stay of Action.
6 7. A true and correct copy of the parties Joint Case Management Conference
7 Statement for July 30, 2020 Case Management Conference is attached as Exhibit H.
8 8. On July 30, 2020, this Court conducted a case management conference and a
9 hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for entry of judgment. A true and correct copy of relevant
10 portions of the transcript is attached as Exhibit I.
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
12 foregoing is true and correct, and this declaration was executed on August 12, 2020 in Sun
13 Valley, Idaho.
14
15
16 Barry W. Lee
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS & 2
P HILLIPS , LLP LEE DECLARATION ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
..
56801752
t:J.J~~tt.Jlrt
Feb 19 2015
04:57PM
1 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
JAMES J. DRAGNA (SBN 91492)
2 COLIN C. WEST (SBN 184095)
THOMAS S. HIXSON (SBN 193033) FEB 19 2015
3 Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, California 94111-4067
CLER~~qF(t"1 c~URT -
~Deputy Clerk
4 Telephone: 415.393.2000
Facsimile: 415.393.2286 BY:_
5
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
6 JOHN B. QUINN (SBN 903 78)
ERlC J. EMANUEL (SBN 102187)
7 865 South Figueroa Street, 1Oth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-2543
8 Telephone: 213.443.3000
Facsimile: 213.443.3100
9
MARCIA SCULLY (SBN 80648)
10 HEATHER C. BEATTY (SBN 161907)
JOSEPH VANDERHORST (SBN 106441)
11 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
700 North Alameda Street
12 Los Angeles, California 90012-2944
Telephone: 213.217.6000
13 Facsimile: 213.217.6980
14 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California [GOVERNMENT CODE§ 6103]
15
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
17 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18
19 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER No. CPF-14-514004
20
AUTHORITY,
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PR8P~~D]
Petitioner and Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING CASE
21
v. Action Filed: May 30, 2014
22
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Trial Date: Not Yet Set
23 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ET AL.,
24 Respondents and Defendants.
25
26
27
28
1 Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
2 ("MWD"), Petitioner and Plaintiff San Diego County Water Authority ("SDCWA"), and Real
3 Parties in Interest City of Torrance, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, West Basin
4 Municipal Water District, Foothill Municipal Water District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water
5 District, City of Los Angeles, Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water
6 District, and Municipal Water District of Orange County (collectively, the "Parties") hereby
7 submit the following stipulation and proposed order:
8 WHEREAS, on May 30, 2014, SDCWA filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and
9 Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and Declaratory Relief ("the Complaint") in
10 this action; and
11 WHEREAS, there are currently two cases titled San Diego County Water Authority v.
12 Metropolitan Water District et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-10-510830 and
13 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District et al., San Francisco Superior
14 Court Case No. CPF-12-512466 (the "2010 and 2012 Actions"), pending before the Honorable
15 Curtis E.A. Karnow in the Complex Department (Department 304) of the Superior Court in and
16 for the County of San Francisco, which involve the same parties and raise certain issues that are
17 factually and legally nearly identical to this action; and
18 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that, because this action raises issues that are factually and
19 legally nearly identical to those at issue in the 2010 and 2012 Actions, it is in the interests of
20 judicial economy and conservation of the scarce resources of the California courts and the Parties
21 that this action be stayed; and
22 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the above-captioned action should be stayed for the
23 present time, with each party reserving its right to move to lift the stay at a later date.
24 IT IS THEREFORE AGREED AND STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES THAT:
25 The above-captioned action should be stayed.
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING CASE
2
3
4
Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff
5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY
6
7 Dated:. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
8
9
By: COLIN C. WEST
10
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
11 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
12
13 Dated: CITY OF TORRANCE
14
15 By: PATRICKQ. SULLIVAN
16 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
CITY OF TORRANCE
17
18
Dated: BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY
19
20
By: STEVEN M. KENNEDY
21
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
22 THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROP 88E9] ORDER STAYING CASE
1 Dated: KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
2
By:
3 JOHN W. KEKER
4
Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff
5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY
6
7
8
Dated: c2 / /'3 /-;) [J I S MORG~.RfEWIS
(~
//
. )
& BOCKIUS
-- LLP
9
By: COLIN C. WEST
10 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
11 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
12
13 Dated: CITY OF TORRANCE
14
15 By: PATRICKQ. SULLIVAN
16 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
CITY OF TORRANCE
17
18
Dated: BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY
19
20
By: STEVEN M. KENNEDY
21
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
22 THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [P.R@POSEQ] ORDER STAYING CASE
1 Dated: KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
2
By:
3 JOHN W. KEKER
4
Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff
5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY
6
7 Dated: MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
8
9 COLIN C. WEST
By:
10 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
11
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
12
13 Dated: CITY OF TORRANCE
14
15 By: PATRICKQ. SULLIVAN
16 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
CITY OF TORRANCE
17
18
19
Dated: ,? /3 j ;2 D J !5 BRUNICK, McELHANEY &
2 KENNEDY
~
20 < g:--::..e:__
By:
c.
STEVEN M. KENNEDy(.
' /,
-
/
21
Attorneys for Respondent and Defen ant
22 THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [l"ltClf<"JSffl] ORDER STAYING CASE
1 Dated: LEMIEUX & O'NEILL
2
3 By: CHRISTINE CARSON
4 Attorneys for Respondents and Real Parties
in h1terest
5 WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL
6 WATER DISTRICT, EASTERN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
7 WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT and LAS VIRGENES
8 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
9
Dated: ALESHIRE & WYDNER, LLP
10
II
12 By: PATRICIA J. QUILIZAPA
13 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
14 ORANGE COUNTY
15
Dated: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER &
16 WILSON
17
18
By: AMRIT S. KULKARNI
19
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES
21 C'1•
22 [Ill I JsED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the above-captioned action is stayed.
23
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
,
28
3
STIPULATION AND [P.RQPRIIED] ORDER STAYING CASE
IJ\•
Dated: ·LEMIEUX & O'NEILL
2
3 By: CHRISTINE CARSON
4
Attorneys for Respondents and Real Parties
in Interest
5 WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL
6 WATER DISTRICT, EASTERN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
7
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
8
DISTRICT and LAS VIRGENES
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
9
10
11
12 By:
13 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
14 ORANGE COUNTY
15
Dated: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER &
16 WILSON
17
18
By: AMRIT S. KULKARNI
19
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES
21
22 [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the above-captioned action is stayed.
23
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DAT
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND {l!ii1 !IPS SED] ORDER STAYING CASE
Dated: LEMIEUX & O'NEILL
2
·'" By:
4 Attorneys for Respondents and Real Parties
in Interest
5 WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL
6 WATER DISTRICT, EASTERN
MUNICJP AL WATER DISTRICT,
7 WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT and LAS VIR GENES
8 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
9
Dated: ALESHIRE & WYDNER, LLP
10
II
12 By: PATRICIA.( QUILIZAPA
13 Attomeys for Respondent and Defendant
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF
14 ORANGE COUNTY
15
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER &
16 WILSON
17
18
By:
19
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES
21
22 !PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the above-captioned action is stayed.
23
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26 f the Superior Court
27
28
··············----------------
3 - - - - - ---·····-------------
STJPULA TION AND [l'H:OPOSISD] ORDER STAYING CASE
EXHIBIT E
58329271
Dec 21 2015
04:43PM
EXHIBIT F
59822978
Nov 10 2016
04:30PM
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
JOHN KEKER - # 49092
2 jkeker@keker.com
DAN JACKSON - # 216091
3 djackson@keker.com
WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884
4 wbraunig@keker.com
NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614
5 ngoldberg@keker.com
633 Battery Street
6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: 415 391 5400
7 Facsimile: 415 397 7188
8 MARK J. HATTAM - # 173667
mhattam@sdcwa.org
9 General Counsel
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
10 4677 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
11 Telephone: (858) 522-6600
Facsimile: (858) 522-6566
12
13
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103]
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830
AUTHORITY,
18 Consolidated with: Case No. CPF-12-512466
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
19 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT FOR
v.
20 JULY 30, 2020 CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
21 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL Date: July 30, 2020
PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE
22 Time: 1:30 p.m.
VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED Dept.: 304
BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER
23 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 13, 2010 TO
24 BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2011; and
DOES 1-10,
25
Respondents and Defendants.
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830; Consolidated with CPF-12-512466
1387542
1 In accordance with the Court’s Order After May 20, 2020 Telephonic Status Conference,
2 Plaintiff and Petitioner San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) and Defendant and
3 Respondent the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) submit this
4 Joint Case Management Conference (CMC) Statement in advance of the July 30, 2020 CMC.
5 I. THE WATER AUTHORITY’S POSITION
6 A. Status of the 2010/2012 Cases
7 1. The 2010/2012 Cases are ready for entry of final judgment.
8 These two consolidated cases, Case Nos. CPF-10-510830 and CPF-12-512466 (the
9 2010/2012 Cases), are ready for entry of final judgment and writ of mandate. The parties have
10 fully briefed their respective positions on the form of judgment and writ, and the Court has
11 scheduled a hearing to address those issues on July 30, 2020, at the same time as this CMC.
12 2. The Water Authority is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs
following entry of final judgment.
13
14 Following entry of final judgment and the issuance of a writ, the only remaining issue is
15 for the Court to award the Water Authority its attorneys’ fees and costs. As “the party with a net
16 monetary recovery,” the Water Authority is the “prevailing party” for purposes of recovering its
17 costs. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4). As such, the Water Authority “is entitled as a matter of
18 right to recover costs,” id.§ 1032(b), and the Court “has no discretion to deny costs” to the Water
19 Authority, Vons Cos. v. Lyle Parks, Jr., Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 823, 832 (2009). The Water
20 Authority will file a memorandum of costs following entry of final judgment in accordance with
21 California Rule of Court 3.1700(a).
22 The Water Authority also is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees. Under the Exchange
23 Agreement between the Water Authority and Metropolitan, “the prevailing Party shall be
24 entitled” to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred “contesting in an administrative or judicial forum
25 whether [Metropolitan’s] charge or charges have been set in accordance with applicable law and
26 regulation.” Exchange Agreement (PTX-65) § 5.2. Judge Karnow found that the Water
27 Authority was the prevailing party and awarded the Water Authority $8,910,354.20 for attorneys’
28 fees for the first phase of the bifurcated trial, but denied an additional $2,617,143.53 in
2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830; Consolidated with CPF-12-512466
1387542
1 uncontested fees the Water Authority incurred for the second phase of trial,1 interpreting the
2 Exchange Agreement’s fee provision as applying only to the challenge to the rates’ validity
3 adjudicated during the first phase of trial. See Mar. 24, 2016 Order Granting in Part and Denying
4 in Part San Diego’s Mot. for Attys’ Fees.
5 The Water Authority appealed Judge Karnow’s denial of its attorneys’ fees for the second
6 phase of trial, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the Water Authority. The Court of Appeal
7 found “no basis for denying fees incurred in the second phase of trial on the breach of contract
8 claim.” San Diego Cty. Water Auth. v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Cal., 12 Cal. App. 5th
9 1124, 1165 (2017). As the Court of Appeal held, the “contract price and water rates are one and
10 the same,” so proving “breach of the price term necessarily includes a rate challenge.” Id. As
11 such, “[b]oth phases of trial thus concerned a dispute over whether charges in the exchange
12 agreement were ‘set in accordance with applicable law and regulation,’” and therefore, the
13 prevailing party is entitled to contractual attorneys’ fees for both phases of trial. Id. at 1165–66.
14 In light of its reversal of the original judgment, the Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court for
15 a redetermination of prevailing party attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1166. The Water Authority remains
16 the prevailing party on the contract, and it is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees for both phases
17 of trial, as well as additional fees incurred on remand.
18 3. The Court should set a briefing schedule and hearing on prevailing
party attorneys’ fees.
19
20 The Water Authority understands that Metropolitan intends to dispute the Water
21 Authority’s status as the prevailing party and entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the Exchange
22 Agreement. Accordingly, the Court should set a briefing schedule and hearing to resolve those
23 issues. The Parties agree that motions for attorneys’ fees should be filed within 60 days after
24 entry of final judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Cases. Additionally, the Water Authority requests
25 that the Court set a hearing date on those motions in November 2020, subject to the Court’s
26
1
27 Metropolitan made “clear” at the time that it was “not contesting the reasonableness of either
the hourly rates or the number of hours spent by SDCWA’s counsel on any particular project.”
28 Feb. 19, 2016 MWD Opp’n to San Diego’s Mot. for Attys’ Fees at 2.
3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830; Consolidated with CPF-12-512466
1387542
1 availability.
2 Typically, a motion for attorneys’ fees must be filed within the time for filing a notice of
3 appeal, but that deadline can be extended by up to 60 days by stipulation of the parties, or even
4 longer by the Court for good cause. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1702(b) & (d). The normal deadline for
5 filing a notice of appeal, and therefore for filing an attorneys’ fees motion, is “60 days after the
6 superior court clerk serves” notice of entry of judgment. Cal. R. Ct. 8.104(a)(1)(A). Because the
7 Court will enter judgment in these cases, in part, pursuant to the Validation Statutes, there is
8 uncertainty as to whether a fees motion must be filed within the expedited 30-day deadline to
9 appeal a validation judgment, see Code Civ. Proc. § 870(b), or within the 60-day deadline that
10 would typically apply to a judgment for breach of contract (which is the source of the fees
11 provision). As far as the Water Authority is aware, no California appellate court has decided
12 whether the 30-day deadline to appeal a validation judgment, or the normal 60-day deadline to
13 appeal, applies to a contractual attorneys’ fees motion in a case where judgment will be entered,
14 in part, under the Validation Statutes. See Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of Nat’l City,
15 220 Cal. App. 4th 1385, 1445 (2013) (declining to “answer [that] precise question” because the
16 trial court was justified in granting discretionary relief to hear the fees motion more than 30 days
17 after judgment).
18 Because of the uncertainty in the law created by the validation cause of action, and absent
19 a stipulation by the Parties or an order from the Court extending the deadline, the Water Authority
20 would be compelled to file its motion for attorneys’ fees within 30 days of ent
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 Phillip R. Kaplan (SBN 76949) Government Code § 6103 2 Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685) 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: pkaplan@manatt.com 08/12/2020 5 Email: bwlee@manatt.com Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO Deputy Clerk 6 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Colin C. West (SBN 184095) 7 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 8 Telephone: (415) 422-1000 Facsimile: (415) 422-1101 9 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com 10 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Marcia Scully (SBN 80648) 11 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907) Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745) 12 700 North Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944 13 Telephone: (213) 217-6834 Facsimile: (213) 217-6890 14 Email: pquilizapa@mwdh2o.com 15 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 18 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004 19 AUTHORITY, Assigned for all purposes to the 20 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Hon. Ann-Christine Massullo, Dept. 304 21 v. DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE IN SUPPORT OF METROPOLITAN 22 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL CALIFORNIA’S OPPOSITION TO 23 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY AND OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 24 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF COMPLAINT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, 25 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2016; Date: August 25, 2020 and DOES 1-10, Time: 10:00 a.m. 26 Respondents and Defendants. 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP LEE DECLARATION ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 DECLARATION OF BARRY W. LEE 2 I, Barry W. Lee, declare: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all of the courts of the 4 State of California, and I am a partner in the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, counsel 5 of record in this action for Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern 6 California (“Metropolitan”). I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called as a 7 witness in the action, I could and would testify competently to them. As to the matters set forth on 8 information and belief, I believe them to be true. 9 2. On April 25, 2016, San Diego filed Notices of Related Case, giving notice that San 10 Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San 11 Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-16-515282 (the 2016 Action): (1) “involves the same 12 parties and is based on the same or similar claims,” and (2) “arises from the same or substantially 13 identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially 14 identical questions of law or fact,” as three other cases between the same parties: Case No. CPF- 15 10-510830 (the “2010 Action”), Case No. CPF-12-512466 (the “2012 Action”), and CPF-14- 16 514004 (the “2014 Action”). Attached as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C are true and 17 correct copies of each of the Notices filed in each case. 1 18 3. On February 19, 2015, the parties stipulated to a stay of the 2014 Action while the 19 2010 and 2012 Actions are pending. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Joint 20 Stipulation and Order Staying the Case. 21 4. On November 20, 2015, San Diego moved to lift the stay in the 2014 Action. On 22 December 21, 2015, Judge Karnow denied the motion. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct 23 copy of the Court Order Denying San Diego’s Motion for Partial Lifting of Stay. 24 5. On November 10, 2016, the parties stipulated to San Diego filing a First Amended 25 Complaint and staying the 2016 Action. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the 26 1 At the time San Diego filed its notices of related case, the 2016 Action was pending in Los 27 Angeles County Superior Court as Case No. BS161729. The parties later agreed to transfer the case to San Francisco Superior Court where it was designated complex and ultimately assigned to 28 this Court for all purposes. M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP LEE DECLARATION ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 Stipulation Re: Filing of Amended Complaint and Stay of Action. 2 6. On July 24, 2018—after the 2010 and 2012 Actions were remanded by the Court 3 of Appeal to this Court—the parties again agreed to stay the 2016 Action pending final resolution 4 of the 2010 and 2012 Actions. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Stipulation 5 Re: Stay of Action. 6 7. A true and correct copy of the parties Joint Case Management Conference 7 Statement for July 30, 2020 Case Management Conference is attached as Exhibit H. 8 8. On July 30, 2020, this Court conducted a case management conference and a 9 hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for entry of judgment. A true and correct copy of relevant 10 portions of the transcript is attached as Exhibit I. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 12 foregoing is true and correct, and this declaration was executed on August 12, 2020 in Sun 13 Valley, Idaho. 14 15 16 Barry W. Lee 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & 2 P HILLIPS , LLP LEE DECLARATION ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D .. 56801752 t:J.J~~tt.Jlrt Feb 19 2015 04:57PM 1 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP JAMES J. DRAGNA (SBN 91492) 2 COLIN C. WEST (SBN 184095) THOMAS S. HIXSON (SBN 193033) FEB 19 2015 3 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 CLER~~qF(t"1 c~URT - ~Deputy Clerk 4 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286 BY:_ 5 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 6 JOHN B. QUINN (SBN 903 78) ERlC J. EMANUEL (SBN 102187) 7 865 South Figueroa Street, 1Oth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 8 Telephone: 213.443.3000 Facsimile: 213.443.3100 9 MARCIA SCULLY (SBN 80648) 10 HEATHER C. BEATTY (SBN 161907) JOSEPH VANDERHORST (SBN 106441) 11 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 700 North Alameda Street 12 Los Angeles, California 90012-2944 Telephone: 213.217.6000 13 Facsimile: 213.217.6980 14 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES Metropolitan Water District of Southern California [GOVERNMENT CODE§ 6103] 15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 17 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 18 19 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER No. CPF-14-514004 20 AUTHORITY, JOINT STIPULATION AND [PR8P~~D] Petitioner and Plaintiff, ORDER STAYING CASE 21 v. Action Filed: May 30, 2014 22 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Trial Date: Not Yet Set 23 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ET AL., 24 Respondents and Defendants. 25 26 27 28 1 Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2 ("MWD"), Petitioner and Plaintiff San Diego County Water Authority ("SDCWA"), and Real 3 Parties in Interest City of Torrance, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, West Basin 4 Municipal Water District, Foothill Municipal Water District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water 5 District, City of Los Angeles, Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water 6 District, and Municipal Water District of Orange County (collectively, the "Parties") hereby 7 submit the following stipulation and proposed order: 8 WHEREAS, on May 30, 2014, SDCWA filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and 9 Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and Declaratory Relief ("the Complaint") in 10 this action; and 11 WHEREAS, there are currently two cases titled San Diego County Water Authority v. 12 Metropolitan Water District et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CPF-10-510830 and 13 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District et al., San Francisco Superior 14 Court Case No. CPF-12-512466 (the "2010 and 2012 Actions"), pending before the Honorable 15 Curtis E.A. Karnow in the Complex Department (Department 304) of the Superior Court in and 16 for the County of San Francisco, which involve the same parties and raise certain issues that are 17 factually and legally nearly identical to this action; and 18 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that, because this action raises issues that are factually and 19 legally nearly identical to those at issue in the 2010 and 2012 Actions, it is in the interests of 20 judicial economy and conservation of the scarce resources of the California courts and the Parties 21 that this action be stayed; and 22 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the above-captioned action should be stayed for the 23 present time, with each party reserving its right to move to lift the stay at a later date. 24 IT IS THEREFORE AGREED AND STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES THAT: 25 The above-captioned action should be stayed. 26 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING CASE 2 3 4 Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 6 7 Dated:. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 8 9 By: COLIN C. WEST 10 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 11 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 12 13 Dated: CITY OF TORRANCE 14 15 By: PATRICKQ. SULLIVAN 16 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant CITY OF TORRANCE 17 18 Dated: BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY 19 20 By: STEVEN M. KENNEDY 21 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 22 THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROP 88E9] ORDER STAYING CASE 1 Dated: KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 2 By: 3 JOHN W. KEKER 4 Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 6 7 8 Dated: c2 / /'3 /-;) [J I S MORG~.RfEWIS (~ // . ) & BOCKIUS -- LLP 9 By: COLIN C. WEST 10 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 11 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 12 13 Dated: CITY OF TORRANCE 14 15 By: PATRICKQ. SULLIVAN 16 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant CITY OF TORRANCE 17 18 Dated: BRUNICK, McELHANEY & KENNEDY 19 20 By: STEVEN M. KENNEDY 21 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 22 THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [P.R@POSEQ] ORDER STAYING CASE 1 Dated: KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 2 By: 3 JOHN W. KEKER 4 Attorneys Petitioner and Plaintiff 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 6 7 Dated: MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 8 9 COLIN C. WEST By: 10 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 11 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 12 13 Dated: CITY OF TORRANCE 14 15 By: PATRICKQ. SULLIVAN 16 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant CITY OF TORRANCE 17 18 19 Dated: ,? /3 j ;2 D J !5 BRUNICK, McELHANEY & 2 KENNEDY ~ 20 < g:--::..e:__ By: c. STEVEN M. KENNEDy(. ' /, - / 21 Attorneys for Respondent and Defen ant 22 THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [l"ltClf<"JSffl] ORDER STAYING CASE 1 Dated: LEMIEUX & O'NEILL 2 3 By: CHRISTINE CARSON 4 Attorneys for Respondents and Real Parties in h1terest 5 WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL 6 WATER DISTRICT, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, 7 WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT and LAS VIRGENES 8 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 9 Dated: ALESHIRE & WYDNER, LLP 10 II 12 By: PATRICIA J. QUILIZAPA 13 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF 14 ORANGE COUNTY 15 Dated: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & 16 WILSON 17 18 By: AMRIT S. KULKARNI 19 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 21 C'1• 22 [Ill I JsED] ORDER Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the above-captioned action is stayed. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 , 28 3 STIPULATION AND [P.RQPRIIED] ORDER STAYING CASE IJ\• Dated: ·LEMIEUX & O'NEILL 2 3 By: CHRISTINE CARSON 4 Attorneys for Respondents and Real Parties in Interest 5 WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL 6 WATER DISTRICT, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, 7 WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 8 DISTRICT and LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 9 10 11 12 By: 13 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF 14 ORANGE COUNTY 15 Dated: MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & 16 WILSON 17 18 By: AMRIT S. KULKARNI 19 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 21 22 [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the above-captioned action is stayed. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DAT 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND {l!ii1 !IPS SED] ORDER STAYING CASE Dated: LEMIEUX & O'NEILL 2 ·'" By: 4 Attorneys for Respondents and Real Parties in Interest 5 WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL 6 WATER DISTRICT, EASTERN MUNICJP AL WATER DISTRICT, 7 WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT and LAS VIR GENES 8 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 9 Dated: ALESHIRE & WYDNER, LLP 10 II 12 By: PATRICIA.( QUILIZAPA 13 Attomeys for Respondent and Defendant MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF 14 ORANGE COUNTY 15 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & 16 WILSON 17 18 By: 19 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant 20 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 21 22 !PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, the above-captioned action is stayed. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 f the Superior Court 27 28 ··············---------------- 3 - - - - - ---·····------------- STJPULA TION AND [l'H:OPOSISD] ORDER STAYING CASE EXHIBIT E 58329271 Dec 21 2015 04:43PM EXHIBIT F 59822978 Nov 10 2016 04:30PM EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H 1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP JOHN KEKER - # 49092 2 jkeker@keker.com DAN JACKSON - # 216091 3 djackson@keker.com WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 243884 4 wbraunig@keker.com NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614 5 ngoldberg@keker.com 633 Battery Street 6 San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400 7 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 8 MARK J. HATTAM - # 173667 mhattam@sdcwa.org 9 General Counsel SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 10 4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 11 Telephone: (858) 522-6600 Facsimile: (858) 522-6566 12 13 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY [GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103] 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830 AUTHORITY, 18 Consolidated with: Case No. CPF-12-512466 Petitioner and Plaintiff, 19 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT FOR v. 20 JULY 30, 2020 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 21 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL Date: July 30, 2020 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE 22 Time: 1:30 p.m. VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED Dept.: 304 BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER 23 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 13, 2010 TO 24 BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2011; and DOES 1-10, 25 Respondents and Defendants. 26 27 28 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830; Consolidated with CPF-12-512466 1387542 1 In accordance with the Court’s Order After May 20, 2020 Telephonic Status Conference, 2 Plaintiff and Petitioner San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) and Defendant and 3 Respondent the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) submit this 4 Joint Case Management Conference (CMC) Statement in advance of the July 30, 2020 CMC. 5 I. THE WATER AUTHORITY’S POSITION 6 A. Status of the 2010/2012 Cases 7 1. The 2010/2012 Cases are ready for entry of final judgment. 8 These two consolidated cases, Case Nos. CPF-10-510830 and CPF-12-512466 (the 9 2010/2012 Cases), are ready for entry of final judgment and writ of mandate. The parties have 10 fully briefed their respective positions on the form of judgment and writ, and the Court has 11 scheduled a hearing to address those issues on July 30, 2020, at the same time as this CMC. 12 2. The Water Authority is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs following entry of final judgment. 13 14 Following entry of final judgment and the issuance of a writ, the only remaining issue is 15 for the Court to award the Water Authority its attorneys’ fees and costs. As “the party with a net 16 monetary recovery,” the Water Authority is the “prevailing party” for purposes of recovering its 17 costs. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4). As such, the Water Authority “is entitled as a matter of 18 right to recover costs,” id.§ 1032(b), and the Court “has no discretion to deny costs” to the Water 19 Authority, Vons Cos. v. Lyle Parks, Jr., Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 823, 832 (2009). The Water 20 Authority will file a memorandum of costs following entry of final judgment in accordance with 21 California Rule of Court 3.1700(a). 22 The Water Authority also is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees. Under the Exchange 23 Agreement between the Water Authority and Metropolitan, “the prevailing Party shall be 24 entitled” to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred “contesting in an administrative or judicial forum 25 whether [Metropolitan’s] charge or charges have been set in accordance with applicable law and 26 regulation.” Exchange Agreement (PTX-65) § 5.2. Judge Karnow found that the Water 27 Authority was the prevailing party and awarded the Water Authority $8,910,354.20 for attorneys’ 28 fees for the first phase of the bifurcated trial, but denied an additional $2,617,143.53 in 2 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830; Consolidated with CPF-12-512466 1387542 1 uncontested fees the Water Authority incurred for the second phase of trial,1 interpreting the 2 Exchange Agreement’s fee provision as applying only to the challenge to the rates’ validity 3 adjudicated during the first phase of trial. See Mar. 24, 2016 Order Granting in Part and Denying 4 in Part San Diego’s Mot. for Attys’ Fees. 5 The Water Authority appealed Judge Karnow’s denial of its attorneys’ fees for the second 6 phase of trial, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the Water Authority. The Court of Appeal 7 found “no basis for denying fees incurred in the second phase of trial on the breach of contract 8 claim.” San Diego Cty. Water Auth. v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Cal., 12 Cal. App. 5th 9 1124, 1165 (2017). As the Court of Appeal held, the “contract price and water rates are one and 10 the same,” so proving “breach of the price term necessarily includes a rate challenge.” Id. As 11 such, “[b]oth phases of trial thus concerned a dispute over whether charges in the exchange 12 agreement were ‘set in accordance with applicable law and regulation,’” and therefore, the 13 prevailing party is entitled to contractual attorneys’ fees for both phases of trial. Id. at 1165–66. 14 In light of its reversal of the original judgment, the Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court for 15 a redetermination of prevailing party attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1166. The Water Authority remains 16 the prevailing party on the contract, and it is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees for both phases 17 of trial, as well as additional fees incurred on remand. 18 3. The Court should set a briefing schedule and hearing on prevailing party attorneys’ fees. 19 20 The Water Authority understands that Metropolitan intends to dispute the Water 21 Authority’s status as the prevailing party and entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the Exchange 22 Agreement. Accordingly, the Court should set a briefing schedule and hearing to resolve those 23 issues. The Parties agree that motions for attorneys’ fees should be filed within 60 days after 24 entry of final judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Cases. Additionally, the Water Authority requests 25 that the Court set a hearing date on those motions in November 2020, subject to the Court’s 26 1 27 Metropolitan made “clear” at the time that it was “not contesting the reasonableness of either the hourly rates or the number of hours spent by SDCWA’s counsel on any particular project.” 28 Feb. 19, 2016 MWD Opp’n to San Diego’s Mot. for Attys’ Fees at 2. 3 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Lead Case No. CPF-10-510830; Consolidated with CPF-12-512466 1387542 1 availability. 2 Typically, a motion for attorneys’ fees must be filed within the time for filing a notice of 3 appeal, but that deadline can be extended by up to 60 days by stipulation of the parties, or even 4 longer by the Court for good cause. See Cal. R. Ct. 3.1702(b) & (d). The normal deadline for 5 filing a notice of appeal, and therefore for filing an attorneys’ fees motion, is “60 days after the 6 superior court clerk serves” notice of entry of judgment. Cal. R. Ct. 8.104(a)(1)(A). Because the 7 Court will enter judgment in these cases, in part, pursuant to the Validation Statutes, there is 8 uncertainty as to whether a fees motion must be filed within the expedited 30-day deadline to 9 appeal a validation judgment, see Code Civ. Proc. § 870(b), or within the 60-day deadline that 10 would typically apply to a judgment for breach of contract (which is the source of the fees 11 provision). As far as the Water Authority is aware, no California appellate court has decided 12 whether the 30-day deadline to appeal a validation judgment, or the normal 60-day deadline to 13 appeal, applies to a contractual attorneys’ fees motion in a case where judgment will be entered, 14 in part, under the Validation Statutes. See Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of Nat’l City, 15 220 Cal. App. 4th 1385, 1445 (2013) (declining to “answer [that] precise question” because the 16 trial court was justified in granting discretionary relief to hear the fees motion more than 30 days 17 after judgment). 18 Because of the uncertainty in the law created by the validation cause of action, and absent 19 a stipulation by the Parties or an order from the Court extending the deadline, the Water Authority 20 would be compelled to file its motion for attorneys’ fees within 30 days of ent