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 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
4 wbraunig@keker.com County of San Francisco
NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614
5 ngoldberg@keker.com 04/04/2022
633 Battery Street Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
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, Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant 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 Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004
18 AUTHORITY,
Consolidated with Case Nos. CPF-16-515282
19 Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross- & CPF-18-516389
Defendant,
20 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
v. AUTHORITY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
21 ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF
22 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL Date: April 13, 2022
PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE Time: 2:00 p.m.
23 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED Dept.: 306
BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
24 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ON APRIL 8, 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE Date Filed: May 30, 2014
25 JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1,
2016; and DOES 1-10, Trial Date: May 16–27, 2022
26
Respondents, Defendants, and
27 Cross-Complainant.
28
SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389
1844741
1 I. INTRODUCTION1
2 Metropolitan’s Opposition to the Water Authority’s Request for Judicial Notice
3 (“Request”) fails to provide any legitimate reason why this Court should not take judicial notice
4 of Exhibits 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 29, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48.2 As the
5 Water Authority explained in its Request, those Exhibits are court records, legislative enactments,
6 and public agency records—standard fare for judicial notice. Rather than address the legal
7 principles governing judicial notice, Metropolitan devotes most of its Opposition to its incorrect
8 arguments on the merits, contending that these exhibits are irrelevant based on Metropolitan’s
9 revisionist history of the Exchange Agreement, and rehashing its meritless evidentiary objections.
10 But Metropolitan’s arguments—which the Water Authority has separately rebutted in its briefing
11 and response to Metropolitan’s evidentiary objections—do not present a barrier to judicial notice.
12 Metropolitan’s remaining arguments, which only pertain to four exhibits (Exhibits 4, 9, 17, and
13 43), are meritless and contradicted by Metropolitan’s own request that the Court judicially notice
14 similar documents. Accordingly, the Court should grant the Water Authority’s Request for
15 Judicial Notice.
16 II. ARGUMENT
17 A. Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 29, 35, 37, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 are subject
to judicial notice.
18
Metropolitan does not seriously dispute that these fifteen exhibits are judicially noticeable,
19
but instead claims that the request for judicial notice should be denied because they are irrelevant.
20
(See RJN Opp. at 6-7.) They are in fact quite relevant, as the Water Authority has explained in its
21
briefing and responses to Metropolitan’s evidentiary objections. Regardless though,
22
Metropolitan’s erroneous arguments on the merits are not a reason to deny judicial notice.
23
Metropolitan’s further challenge to the authenticity of Exhibits 19, 20, 29, 35, 37, and
24
38—letters authored by representatives of Metropolitan and the Water Authority, and included in
25
Metropolitan’s own administrative record—is frivolous. First, as explained in the Water
26
1
Unless otherwise noted, the Water Authority incorporates all defined terms from its Request for
27 Judicial Notice, filed with this Court on February 22, 2022.
2
28 Metropolitan concedes that this Court should take judicial notice of Exhibits 1–3, 5–8, 10, 15,
16, 18, 21–28, 30–34, 36, 39–42, and 49.
2
SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389
1844741
1 Authority’s response to Metropolitan’s evidentiary objections, Metropolitan admits the
2 undisputed facts supported by these exhibits. (See UMFs 167, 172, 175, 180, 181 (2014 Action
3 [citing Exhibits 19, 20]; UMFS 169, 170, 176, 177, 178, 182, 183, 188 (2016 Action) [citing
4 Exhibits 29, 38]; UMFs 169, 170, 171, 172, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 191, 192 (2018
5 Action) [citing Exhibits 35, 37, 38].) Thus, Metropolitan has “waived any objection to the
6 exhibits…which formed the evidentiary basis of” these facts, including Exhibits 19, 20, 29, 35,
7 37, and 38. (Hurley Const. Co. v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 533,
8 541.) Second, there can be no legitimate dispute as to the authenticity of these documents, which
9 bear the seal and signature of public officials, were sent to and from the parties in this case, were
10 authenticated in Dan Jackson’s declaration, and again, were included in Metropolitan’s own
11 administrative record. (See Evid. Code §§ 1280, 1453; Poland v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles (1995)
12 34 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1135.) The purpose of judicial notice is to serve “as a substitute for proof,
13 a judicial shortcut, a doing away with the formal necessity for evidence.” Gravert v. DeLuse
14 (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 576, 580 [quoting Varco v. Lee (1919) 180 C. 338, 344] [internal quotation
15 marks omitted].) Thus, the Court should take judicial notice of these exhibits.
16 B. Contrary to Metropolitan’s argument, court records are judicially noticeable.
17 1. Exhibits 9, 17, and 43
18 Exhibits 9, 17, and 43, which are this Court’s Orders in the prior cases, are “[r]ecords
19 of…[a] court of this state,” subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(d). (See
20 Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875,
21 882; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 168 n.2.)
22 Metropolitan fails to dispute this authority, which should end this Court’s inquiry. Indeed,
23 Metropolitan itself has sought judicial notice of records of other legal proceedings, arguing that
24 they “are judicially noticeable as court records and the acts of public agencies.” (See
25 Metropolitan Req. for Judicial Notice, at p. 6.) Nevertheless, Metropolitan argues that this
26 Court’s own prior orders are somehow irrelevant, and that the Court cannot judicially notice the
27 truth of the matters asserted within them. (See RJN Opp. at 4.) Metropolitan is wrong on both
28 counts.
3
SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389
1844741
1 As explained in the Water Authority’s briefing and responses to Metropolitan’s
2 evidentiary objections, this Court’s prior rulings are relevant, providing persuasive authority to
3 guide the Court’s reasoning as it resolves the same issues that have already been decided against
4 Metropolitan, but which Metropolitan continues to litigate ad nauseam. The fact that
5 Metropolitan is unwilling to follow this Court’s prior orders does not render them irrelevant—
6 precisely the opposite. For example, in Exhibit 9, the Court held that the statutory “fair
7 compensation” requirement, which includes the “obligation to credit offsetting benefits,” applies
8 to the Exchange Agreement and is not “moot” or untimely, but instead is Metropolitan’s “clear,
9 present, and continuing duty.” (Ex. 9 at pp. 6–7, 11–13.) In Exhibit 17, the Court held that the
10 Water Authority “complied with [the] government claims act requirement, per Government Code
11 Section 911,” and that Metropolitan’s “failure to respond to [the Water Authority’s] claims as
12 presented or point out [their alleged] deficiencies is a waiver of such deficiencies.” (Ex. 17 at p.
13 3.) And in Exhibit 43, the Court held that Proposition 26 applies to Metropolitan’s charges,
14 which—contrary to Metropolitan’s argument—are “imposed.” (Ex. 43 at p.3.) These prior
15 rulings are relevant, and Metropolitan has provided no reason why the Court should deviate from
16 them now, let alone decline to judicially notice them.
17 Metropolitan’s argument that the Court cannot consider the truth of the matters asserted in
18 its prior orders (see RJN Opp. at 5) also misses the mark. As the Court of Appeal held in Aixtron,
19 Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc., courts have long taken “judicial notice of the existence of judicial
20 opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached[,] in documents such as
21 orders, statements of decisions, and judgments.” ((2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360, 382, quoting
22 Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 130 n.7, internal quotation marks omitted.) The
23 Water Authority cited this decision in its Request, but Metropolitan ignores it. Instead,
24 Metropolitan jousts with windmills by citing a line of cases holding that courts cannot accept
25 another court’s findings of fact or repetitions of hearsay. (See, e.g., Sosinksy v. Grant (1992) 6
26 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th
27 471, 483–484.) But the Water Authority does not ask this Court to judicially notice findings of
28 fact or the truth of allegations in the Water Authority’s complaints; it merely requests that this
4
SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389
1844741
1 Court take judicial notice of its prior decisions, their legal reasoning, and their results. This Court
2 should do so.
3 2. Exhibit 4
4 Exhibit 4, Metropolitan’s Opening Brief on Appeal filed in the prior cases, is similarly
5 judicially noticeable, despite Metropolitan’s halfhearted attempts to claim otherwise. Exhibit 4
6 demonstrates that Metropolitan previously advanced in the Court of Appeal the same meritless
7 contract defenses and arguments challenging the Exchange Agreement that it repeats here. (See
8 Ex. 4 at pp. 114–130.) The Court of Appeal considered those arguments and rejected them. (Ex.
9 5, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2017)
10 12 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1154 (SDCWA I) [“Metropolitan has made several assertions on appeal
11 denying an enforceable contract and actionable breach but none is persuasive.”].) Therefore,
12 Exhibit 4 is relevant to establishing that Metropolitan’s cross-claims and affirmative defenses
13 regarding these issues are precluded. (See Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67
14 Cal.App.5th 657, 686–687, 701, 707–708; Denio v. City of Huntington Beach (1946) 74
15 Cal.App.2d 424, 425–430; Key v. Tyler (2019) 34 Cal.App.4th 505, 535.) Indeed, Metropolitan’s
16 own authority confirms that “[t]he entire record of the first suit may be examined to determine if
17 an issue was decided by the judgment.” Frommhagen v. Board of Supervisors (1987) 197
18 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1301 n.3; see also Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23
19 Cal.4th 163, 168 n.2 [taking judicial notice of amicus curiae brief filed in separate matter].) Thus,
20 this Court should take judicial notice of Exhibit 4.
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
5
SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389
1844741
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Water Authority’s Request and
3 judicially notice Exhibits 1–49 to the Declaration of Dan Jackson.
4
Dated: April 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
5
6
By:
7 NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG
8 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
9 ATTORNEYS FOR SAN DIEGO
COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389
1844741
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 F I L E D Superior Court of California, 4 wbraunig@keker.com County of San Francisco NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG - # 273614 5 ngoldberg@keker.com 04/04/2022 633 Battery Street Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO 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, Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendant 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 Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004 18 AUTHORITY, Consolidated with Case Nos. CPF-16-515282 19 Petitioner, Plaintiff, and Cross- & CPF-18-516389 Defendant, 20 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER v. AUTHORITY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 21 ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF 22 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL Date: April 13, 2022 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE Time: 2:00 p.m. 23 VALIDITY OF THE RATES ADOPTED Dept.: 306 BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo 24 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE Date Filed: May 30, 2014 25 JANUARY 1, 2015 AND JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10, Trial Date: May 16–27, 2022 26 Respondents, Defendants, and 27 Cross-Complainant. 28 SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389 1844741 1 I. INTRODUCTION1 2 Metropolitan’s Opposition to the Water Authority’s Request for Judicial Notice 3 (“Request”) fails to provide any legitimate reason why this Court should not take judicial notice 4 of Exhibits 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 29, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48.2 As the 5 Water Authority explained in its Request, those Exhibits are court records, legislative enactments, 6 and public agency records—standard fare for judicial notice. Rather than address the legal 7 principles governing judicial notice, Metropolitan devotes most of its Opposition to its incorrect 8 arguments on the merits, contending that these exhibits are irrelevant based on Metropolitan’s 9 revisionist history of the Exchange Agreement, and rehashing its meritless evidentiary objections. 10 But Metropolitan’s arguments—which the Water Authority has separately rebutted in its briefing 11 and response to Metropolitan’s evidentiary objections—do not present a barrier to judicial notice. 12 Metropolitan’s remaining arguments, which only pertain to four exhibits (Exhibits 4, 9, 17, and 13 43), are meritless and contradicted by Metropolitan’s own request that the Court judicially notice 14 similar documents. Accordingly, the Court should grant the Water Authority’s Request for 15 Judicial Notice. 16 II. ARGUMENT 17 A. Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 29, 35, 37, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 are subject to judicial notice. 18 Metropolitan does not seriously dispute that these fifteen exhibits are judicially noticeable, 19 but instead claims that the request for judicial notice should be denied because they are irrelevant. 20 (See RJN Opp. at 6-7.) They are in fact quite relevant, as the Water Authority has explained in its 21 briefing and responses to Metropolitan’s evidentiary objections. Regardless though, 22 Metropolitan’s erroneous arguments on the merits are not a reason to deny judicial notice. 23 Metropolitan’s further challenge to the authenticity of Exhibits 19, 20, 29, 35, 37, and 24 38—letters authored by representatives of Metropolitan and the Water Authority, and included in 25 Metropolitan’s own administrative record—is frivolous. First, as explained in the Water 26 1 Unless otherwise noted, the Water Authority incorporates all defined terms from its Request for 27 Judicial Notice, filed with this Court on February 22, 2022. 2 28 Metropolitan concedes that this Court should take judicial notice of Exhibits 1–3, 5–8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 21–28, 30–34, 36, 39–42, and 49. 2 SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389 1844741 1 Authority’s response to Metropolitan’s evidentiary objections, Metropolitan admits the 2 undisputed facts supported by these exhibits. (See UMFs 167, 172, 175, 180, 181 (2014 Action 3 [citing Exhibits 19, 20]; UMFS 169, 170, 176, 177, 178, 182, 183, 188 (2016 Action) [citing 4 Exhibits 29, 38]; UMFs 169, 170, 171, 172, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 191, 192 (2018 5 Action) [citing Exhibits 35, 37, 38].) Thus, Metropolitan has “waived any objection to the 6 exhibits…which formed the evidentiary basis of” these facts, including Exhibits 19, 20, 29, 35, 7 37, and 38. (Hurley Const. Co. v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 533, 8 541.) Second, there can be no legitimate dispute as to the authenticity of these documents, which 9 bear the seal and signature of public officials, were sent to and from the parties in this case, were 10 authenticated in Dan Jackson’s declaration, and again, were included in Metropolitan’s own 11 administrative record. (See Evid. Code §§ 1280, 1453; Poland v. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles (1995) 12 34 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1135.) The purpose of judicial notice is to serve “as a substitute for proof, 13 a judicial shortcut, a doing away with the formal necessity for evidence.” Gravert v. DeLuse 14 (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 576, 580 [quoting Varco v. Lee (1919) 180 C. 338, 344] [internal quotation 15 marks omitted].) Thus, the Court should take judicial notice of these exhibits. 16 B. Contrary to Metropolitan’s argument, court records are judicially noticeable. 17 1. Exhibits 9, 17, and 43 18 Exhibits 9, 17, and 43, which are this Court’s Orders in the prior cases, are “[r]ecords 19 of…[a] court of this state,” subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(d). (See 20 Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 21 882; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 168 n.2.) 22 Metropolitan fails to dispute this authority, which should end this Court’s inquiry. Indeed, 23 Metropolitan itself has sought judicial notice of records of other legal proceedings, arguing that 24 they “are judicially noticeable as court records and the acts of public agencies.” (See 25 Metropolitan Req. for Judicial Notice, at p. 6.) Nevertheless, Metropolitan argues that this 26 Court’s own prior orders are somehow irrelevant, and that the Court cannot judicially notice the 27 truth of the matters asserted within them. (See RJN Opp. at 4.) Metropolitan is wrong on both 28 counts. 3 SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389 1844741 1 As explained in the Water Authority’s briefing and responses to Metropolitan’s 2 evidentiary objections, this Court’s prior rulings are relevant, providing persuasive authority to 3 guide the Court’s reasoning as it resolves the same issues that have already been decided against 4 Metropolitan, but which Metropolitan continues to litigate ad nauseam. The fact that 5 Metropolitan is unwilling to follow this Court’s prior orders does not render them irrelevant— 6 precisely the opposite. For example, in Exhibit 9, the Court held that the statutory “fair 7 compensation” requirement, which includes the “obligation to credit offsetting benefits,” applies 8 to the Exchange Agreement and is not “moot” or untimely, but instead is Metropolitan’s “clear, 9 present, and continuing duty.” (Ex. 9 at pp. 6–7, 11–13.) In Exhibit 17, the Court held that the 10 Water Authority “complied with [the] government claims act requirement, per Government Code 11 Section 911,” and that Metropolitan’s “failure to respond to [the Water Authority’s] claims as 12 presented or point out [their alleged] deficiencies is a waiver of such deficiencies.” (Ex. 17 at p. 13 3.) And in Exhibit 43, the Court held that Proposition 26 applies to Metropolitan’s charges, 14 which—contrary to Metropolitan’s argument—are “imposed.” (Ex. 43 at p.3.) These prior 15 rulings are relevant, and Metropolitan has provided no reason why the Court should deviate from 16 them now, let alone decline to judicially notice them. 17 Metropolitan’s argument that the Court cannot consider the truth of the matters asserted in 18 its prior orders (see RJN Opp. at 5) also misses the mark. As the Court of Appeal held in Aixtron, 19 Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc., courts have long taken “judicial notice of the existence of judicial 20 opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached[,] in documents such as 21 orders, statements of decisions, and judgments.” ((2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360, 382, quoting 22 Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 130 n.7, internal quotation marks omitted.) The 23 Water Authority cited this decision in its Request, but Metropolitan ignores it. Instead, 24 Metropolitan jousts with windmills by citing a line of cases holding that courts cannot accept 25 another court’s findings of fact or repetitions of hearsay. (See, e.g., Sosinksy v. Grant (1992) 6 26 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 27 471, 483–484.) But the Water Authority does not ask this Court to judicially notice findings of 28 fact or the truth of allegations in the Water Authority’s complaints; it merely requests that this 4 SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389 1844741 1 Court take judicial notice of its prior decisions, their legal reasoning, and their results. This Court 2 should do so. 3 2. Exhibit 4 4 Exhibit 4, Metropolitan’s Opening Brief on Appeal filed in the prior cases, is similarly 5 judicially noticeable, despite Metropolitan’s halfhearted attempts to claim otherwise. Exhibit 4 6 demonstrates that Metropolitan previously advanced in the Court of Appeal the same meritless 7 contract defenses and arguments challenging the Exchange Agreement that it repeats here. (See 8 Ex. 4 at pp. 114–130.) The Court of Appeal considered those arguments and rejected them. (Ex. 9 5, San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2017) 10 12 Cal.App.5th 1124, 1154 (SDCWA I) [“Metropolitan has made several assertions on appeal 11 denying an enforceable contract and actionable breach but none is persuasive.”].) Therefore, 12 Exhibit 4 is relevant to establishing that Metropolitan’s cross-claims and affirmative defenses 13 regarding these issues are precluded. (See Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 14 Cal.App.5th 657, 686–687, 701, 707–708; Denio v. City of Huntington Beach (1946) 74 15 Cal.App.2d 424, 425–430; Key v. Tyler (2019) 34 Cal.App.4th 505, 535.) Indeed, Metropolitan’s 16 own authority confirms that “[t]he entire record of the first suit may be examined to determine if 17 an issue was decided by the judgment.” Frommhagen v. Board of Supervisors (1987) 197 18 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1301 n.3; see also Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 19 Cal.4th 163, 168 n.2 [taking judicial notice of amicus curiae brief filed in separate matter].) Thus, 20 this Court should take judicial notice of Exhibit 4. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 5 SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389 1844741 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Water Authority’s Request and 3 judicially notice Exhibits 1–49 to the Declaration of Dan Jackson. 4 Dated: April 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 5 6 By: 7 NICHOLAS S. GOLDBERG 8 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 9 ATTORNEYS FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 SDCWA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Lead Case No. CPF-14-514004; Consolidated with CPF-16-515282 & CPF-18-516389 1844741