Preview
1 ROB BONTA EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
Attorney General of California UNDER GOV. CODE SEC. 6103
2 EDWARD H. OCHOA
Senior Assistant Attorney General
3 LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
4 HEATHER M. LEWIS (SBN 291933)
ERIN GANAHL (SBN 248472)
5 MARI MAYEDA (SBN 110947)
BRIAN CALAVAN (SBN 347724)
6 KATE HAMMOND (SBN 293433)
Deputy Attorneys General
7 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
8 Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Telephone: (510) 879-1300
9 Fax: (510) 622-2270
E-mail: Brian.Calavan@doj.ca.gov
10 Attorneys for JCCP Petitioner
People of the State of California ex rel. Rob Bonta,
11 Attorney General of California
12 (Additional counsel listed on signature page)
13
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
16
Case No. 17-CV-03242
17 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
18 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ex rel. ROB BONTA v. GRANTING PETITION FOR
19 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION et al., San COORDINATION
Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-23-
20 609134;
21 THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually
22 and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. CHEVRON
23 CORPORATION et al., San Mateo Superior
Court, Case No. 17-CIV-03222;
24
THE COUNTY OF MARIN, individually and
25 on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
26 OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON
CORPORATION et al., Marin Superior Court,
27 Case No. CIV-17-02586;
28
2939763.2 -1-
Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination –
(17-CV-03242)
1 THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ,
individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE
2 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v.
3 CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Santa
Cruz Superior Court, Case No. 17-CV-03242;
4
THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH,
5 individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v.
6 CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Contra
7 Costa Superior Court, Case No. MSC17-
01227;
8
THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually
9 and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON
10 CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior
11 Court, Case No. 17-CV-03243;
12 THE CITY OF RICHMOND, individually and
on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
13 OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON
CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa Superior
14
Court, Case No. MSC18-00055.
15
16 TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
17 COUNSEL OF RECORD:
18 You are hereby notified that on February 5, 2024, the Hon. Charles S. Treat issued an
19 Order Granting Petition for Coordination for the Fuel Industry Climate Cases, JCCP No.
20 5310, recommending that the coordination proceedings be assigned to San Francisco Superior
21 Court, and that the court having appellate jurisdiction should be the Court of Appeal for the First
22 District. JCCP No. 5310 includes the following actions:
23 1. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ROB BONTA v. EXXON
24 MOBIL CORPORATION et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-23-609134;
25 2. THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF
26 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., San Mateo Superior Court,
27 Case No. 17-CIV-03222;
28
2939763.2 -2-
Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination –
(17-CV-03242)
1 3. THE COUNTY OF MARIN, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Marin Superior Court, Case No.
3 CIV-17-02586;
4 4. THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE
5 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior
6 Court, Case No. 17-CV-03242;
7 5. THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE
8 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa Superior
9 Court, Case No. MSC17-01227;
10 6. THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF
11 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior Court,
12 Case No. 17-CV-03243;
13 7. THE CITY OF RICHMOND, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa Superior Court,
15 Case No. MSC18-00055.
16 A copy of the Order Granting Petition for Coordination is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
17 Dated: February 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
18 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
19 EDWARD H. OCHOA
Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General
20 LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
21
/s/ Brian Calavan
22 BRIAN CALAVAN
HEATHER M. LEWIS
23 ERIN GANAHL
MARI MAYEDA
24 KATE HAMMOND
Deputy Attorneys General
25
26
27
28
2939763.2 -3-
Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination –
(17-CV-03242)
1 ELIZABETH J. CABRASER (SBN 083151)
ROBERT J. NELSON (SBN 132797)
2 LEXI J. HAZAM (SBN 224457)
NIMISH R. DESAI (SBN 244953)
3 KEVIN R. BUDNER (SBN 287271)
MICHAEL LEVIN-GESUNDHEIT (SBN
4 292930)
WILSON M. DUNLAVEY (SBN 307719)
5 MIRIAM E. MARKS (SBN 332351)
CAITLIN M. WOODS (SBN 335601)
6 SARAH D. ZANDI (SBN 339981)
AMELIA A. HASELKORN (SBN 339633)
7 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
8 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
9 Telephone: (415) 956-1000
10 Attorneys for JCCP Petitioner
Plaintiff People of the State of California
11 ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of
California
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2939763.2 -4-
Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination –
(17-CV-03242)
EXHIBIT 1
DocuS ign Envelope ID: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20DB84B1A789
r~
1
2
3
°" ~D
FEB O5 202~
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
12
Coordination Proceeding JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDI ATIO
13 Special Title (Rule 3.550) PROCEEDING 0 . 5310
14 FUEL INDUSTRY CLIMATE CASES ORD ER GRA TI G PETITIO FOR
COORDINATIO
15 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
16 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ex rel. ROB BONTA v.
17 EX.XO MOBIL CORPORATION et al. , San
Francisco Superior Court, Ca e o. CGC-23-
18 609134;
19 THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually
20 and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
STA TE OF CALIFORNIA , v. CHEVRO
21 CORPORATION et al. San Mateo Superior
Court, Case No. 17-CIV-03222;
22
THE COUNTY OF MARI , individually and
23
on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
24 OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON
CORPORATION et al., Mari n Superior Court,
25 Ca e o. CIV-17-02586 ·
26 THE CO UNTY OF SA N TA CRUZ,
individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE
27
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v.
28
2928096.3
- I-
DocuSign Envelope ID: 84053984-6B39--4DC1-A6AD-20DB84B1A789
CHEVRO CORPORATIO et al., Santa
Cruz Superior Court, Case o. l 7-CV-03242;
2
3 THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH,
individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE
4 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v.
CHEVRO CORPORATIO et al., Contra
5 Costa Superior Court, Case o. MSCl 7-
01227·
6
7 THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually
and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON
CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior
9 Court, Case No. l 7-CV-03243;
10
THE CITY OF RICHMOND, individually
11
and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFOR IA v. CHEVRO
12
CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa
Superior Court, Case o. MSC! 8-00055.
13
14
15 For the reasons stated in the attached Tentative Ruling, Ex. A and pursuant to the
16 coordination hearing held before the Hon . Charle S. Treat on January 25 , 2024 at 9 a.m. at 725
17 Court Street, Third Floor, Room 30 I, Martinez, California, the Court grants the petition to
18 coordinate the Fuel industry Climate Cases, JCCP No. 5310, and recommends that the
19 coordination proceedings be assigned to San Francisco Superior Court, and that the court having
20 appellate jurisdiction should be the Court of Appeal for the First District.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 FEB O5 2024
DATED:
23 - - - - - - - - -- - - Judge of the Superior Court
24 CH~RlES S. TREAT
25
26
27
28
2928096.3
-2-
DocuSign Envelope ID: 84053984-6839-4DC1-A6AD-20D88481A789
EXHIBIT A
DocuSign Envclopo ID: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20OB84B1A789
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 12
JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT
HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024
severed if they presented the only significant features of unconscionability here.
Conclusion
Civil Code§ 1670.S(a) provides that "[iJf the court as a matter of law finds [a] contract or any clause of
the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made[,) the court may refuse to enforce
the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it
may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result."
""'In deciding whether to sever terms rather than to preclude enforcement of the provision
altogether, the overarching inquiry is whether the interests of justice would be furthered by
severance; the strong preference is to sever unless the agreement is 'permeated' by
unconscionability." ... An agreement to arbitrate is considered "permeated" by unconscionability
where it contains more than one unconscionable provision."' (De Leon v. Pinnacle Property
Management Services, llC (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 476, 492.)
Here, both the class action waiver and the PAGA waiver are unconscionable. Consequently, the
Arbitration Agreement is "permeated by unconscionability" as defined by the case law. The Court
denies the motion to compel arbitration.
2. 9:00AM CASE NUMBER: C23-01514
CASE NAME: AMY STONE VS. AGEMARK CORPORATION
*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: LEAVE TO FILE 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FILED BY: STONE, AMY
*TENTATIVE RULING:*
The motion has been mooted by stipulation.
3. 9:00AM CASE NUMBER: JCCPS310
CASE NAME: FUEL INDUSTRY CLIMATE CASES
*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: PETITION FOR COORDINATION
FILED BY:
*TENTATIVE RULING:*
These multiple actions are all suits brought by the California Attorney General and by several counties
and municipalities in California, suing a number of large energy-industry companies. Broadly
summarizing, the suits seek to establish the defendants' responsibility and liability for contributing to
global climate change.
The Court grants the coordination petition, and recommends that the coordination proceedings be
10
DocuSign Envelope 1D: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20DB84B1A789
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 12
JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT
HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024
assigned to San Francisco Superior Court.
Coordination
All parties are in agreement that these cases are complex under California Rule of Court 3.502. They
are likewise in unanimous agreement that these actions should be coordinated, proceeding in a single
Superior Court under Code of Civil Procedure§ 404 and California Rule of Court 3.524. Accordingly,
the petition for coordination is granted.
The actions affected are listed here. All had been removed to federal court but all have been
remanded.
1. City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corporation, et al.. No. MSC17-01227 (Contra Costa
Superior Court)
2. City of Richmond v. Chevron Corporation. et al.. No. MSC-18-00055 (Contra Costa Superior
Court)
3. County of Marin v. Chevron Corporation. et al., No. CIV-17-02586 (Marin Superior Court)
4. People of the State of California ex rel. Rob Banta v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.. No. CGC-
23-609134 (San Francisco Superior Court)
5. County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corporation, et al.. No. 17-CIV-03222 (San Mateo Superior
Court)
6. County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corporation. et al., No. 17-CV-03242 (Santa Cruz Superior
Court)
7. City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corporation, et al.. NO. 17-CV-03243 (Santa Cruz Superior Court)
The Court notes that there is also reference in some of the coordination papers of two additional
action filed in Alameda Superior Court by the City of Oakland, and in San Francisco Superior Court by
the City and County of San Francisco. Those actions were not included in the Judicial Council's Order
Assigning Coordination Judge, presumably because at this time they are technically still pending in
federal court after removal - but remands to state court are expected any day now, following the
Ninth Circuit's affirmance of a remand decision. Counsel for plaintiffs in both cases have filed
statements in connection with choice of venue, which the Court has taken into consideration. Once
formal remands have been effected, the Court invites a stipulation adding the Oakland and San
Francisco cases to the coordination package.
Choice of Venue
The parties' only disagreement is the selection of the best court in which to coordinate these actions.
Plaintiffs are unanimous in requesting that the cases be assigned to the Superior Court for San
Francisco County. The defendants that have opined on the point are instead requesting assignment to
the Superior Court for Contra Costa County. Failing that, they request in the alternative that the cases
be assigned to the Superior Court of Sacramento County.
11
DocuSign Envelope ID: 84053984-6839-4OC1-A6AD-20O88481A789
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 12
JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT
HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024
The undersigned Court is confident that these matters could be appropriately handled in any of these
Counties. On consideration of all of the parties' arguments and considerations, however, the Court
recommends that the coordination proceedings should occur in the Superior Court of San Francisco
County.
Defendants' arguments focus largely on the venue statutes, and in particular on the point that one of
the actions to be included (although one not yet formally included) is brought by the City and County
of San Francisco, thus arguably implicating the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure§ 394 concerning
venue in actions brought by a county. However, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the limitations of
that statute do not apply to a coordination proceeding. "Once a case has come under the
coordination procedure, the place of trial must be determined by the coordination judge unfettered
by the narrow perspective of the venue statutes." (Keenan v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d
336, 342 (citation omitted).) Moreover, even if§ 394 technically applied, that statute applies equally
well to an action brought by a city. Here, one of the actions is brought by the City of Richmond,
located in Contra Costa County.
Of course, whether or not the venue statutes formally apply, the policy and concerns underlying
those statutes, of fairness and impartiality, are manifestly relevant here. But this Court has every
confidence that the San Francisco Superior Court c,:in be fully trusted to remain impartial and
unbiased in these actions, uninfluenced by the fact that one of the coordinated cases is brought by
the City and County of San Francisco- just as the Court is quite confident that the Contra Costa
Superior Court would remain entirely uninfluenced by the facts that one of the plaintiffs is the City of
Richmond, or that one of the major defendants is Chevron ·corporation, located in this County.
If ever there were litigations that could be described as truly global in scope, they are these. There is
no plausible reason to believe that either the courts of either county, or (potentially) any jurors in
either county, are going to be influenced by the local identities of one or more of the plaintiffs or
defendants formally involved in the litigations. Regardless of which governmental entities have
brought these lawsuits, the interests potentially affected by the issues in these cases apply equally
well to the populations of San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, or indeed any other county,
state, or nation on the face of the Earth. These are not lawsuits with a local focus or local stakes. If
there turns out to be any challenge in finding unbiased jurors, it will be because of people's views on
climate issues, not because of the identities of the government plaintiffs or the locations of the
corporate defendants.
With fairness and impartiality assured in either venue, that leaves considerations of convenience and
practicality.
Reading over the service lists in these matters, there are no law firms or legal offices at all in these
cases located in Contra Costa County. Indeed, there are only one or two even located elsewhere in
the East Bay, namely Oakland -which is at least as convenient to San Francisco as to Martinez. And
on the other side of the balance, nearly all of the parties in these actions are represented by law
offices located in San Francisco. Those law firms located outside the Bay Area, such as in Los Angeles,
12
DocuSign Envelope 10: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20O884B1A789
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
DEPARTMENT 12
JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT
HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024
also have offices in San Francisco.
Moreover, the Court is cognizant that proceedings in these cases are certain to draw large numbers of
not only lawyers and their supporting staffs, but press, interested members of the public, and others
desiring to observe. The location of the Contra Costa Court, in downtown Martinez, is poorly served
by public transportation, and somewhat less convenient than San Francisco to commercial air travel.
It has very limited amenities such as nearby hotel accommodations, restaurants, and public parking.
Indeed, Martinez often has difficulty finding parking even for the Court's litigants and jurors, without
drawing large crowds of law firm personnel, reporters, spectators, or demonstrators. San Francisco
will be a far more convenient setting for all of these concerns.
The Court also determines that the court having appellate jurisdiction should be the Court of Appeal
for the First District. The parties are in no disagreement on this point.
Disclosure
The Court draws attention to the point that one of the defense counsel firms listed in the case is
Latham & Watkins LLP, although that firm has filed nothing in this Court on the present coordination
petition. The undersigned Judge was formerly a partner at that firm. However, he has had no
affiliation (and substantially no contact) with Latham since he took the bench in 2005, and his prior
affiliation has had no effect or influence on the present decision.
4. 9:00 AM CASE NUMBER: L23-01295
CASE NAME: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. PLAMEN GEORGIEV
*HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED
FILED BY: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK
*TENTATIVE RULING:*
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to deem matters admitted is granted. All matters included in American
Express's first set of requests for admissions (served on or about Ju!S 5, 2023) are deemed admitted.
In its Order After Hearing, American Express should spell those matters out verbatim to avoid any
ambiguity as to what is so deemed. The Court declines to award sanctions on top of the deemed
admissions, but it may do so if there is an untimely response to the requests.
13
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of
3 eighteen (18) years and not a party to the action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, San
4 Francisco, CA 94111-3339. I am readily familiar with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
5 LLP’s practice for collection and processing of documents for overnight delivery.
6 On February 7, 2024, I served copies of the following documents:
7 ï‚· NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR
8 COORDINATION
9 ï‚· EXHIBIT 1 TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR COORDINATION, which includes:
10
o ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR COORDINATION
11
12 upon the counsel listed below via first-class U.S. mail as follows:
13 John D. Nibbelin, David A. Silberman, and Dawn Sestito
Lauren F. Carroll O’Melveny & Myers LLP
14 San Mateo County Counsel 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
400 County Center, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
15 Redwood City, CA 94063
Jennifer Lyon and Steven E. Boehmer Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Daniel J. Toal, and
16 City Attorney for City of Imperial Beach Kannon K. Shanmugam
City of Imperial Beach Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
17 8100 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite 200 Garrison LLP
La Mesa, CA 91942 1285 Avenue of the Americas
18 New York, New York 10019-6064
Yardena R. Zwang-Weissman, Deanne L. Brian E. Washington
19 Miller, and David L. Schrader Marin County Counsel
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP County of Marin
20 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 275
Los Angeles, CA 90071 San Rafael, CA 94903
21 Anthony P. Condotti Daniel J. Bergeson, John D. Pernick, and
Atchison, Barisone & Condotti, APC Adam Trigg
22 City Attorney for City of Santa Cruz Bergeson LLP
333 Church Street 111 N. Market St., Suite 600
23 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 San Jose, CA 95113
Ethan D. Dettmer Joshua S. Lipshutz
24 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
25 San Francisco, CA 94105 Washington, D.C. 20036
James C. Hyde, Michael Iannou, and Marie E. Mortimer H. Hartwell
26 Sobieski Vinson & Elkins LLP
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley 555 Mission Street Suite 2000
27 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94105
San Jose, CA 95113
28
2939763.2 -1-
Proof of Service (17-CV-03242)
1 Patrick W. Mizell Matthew R. Stammel
Vinson & Elkins LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP
2 1001 Fannin Suite 2300 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3900
Houston, TX 77002 Dallas, Texas 75201
3 Jonathan W. Hughes John D. Lombardo
Arnold & Porter Arnold & Porter
4 Three Embarcadero Center, Tenth Floor 777 South Figueroa Street
San Francisco, CA 94111 Los Angeles, CA 90017
5 Robert E. Dunn and Collin J. Viera Raymond A. Cardozo and T. Connor
Eimer Stahl LLP O’Carroll
6 99 South Almaden Boulevard, Suite 600 Reed Smith LLP
San Jose, CA 95113 101 Second Street, Suite 1800
7 San Francisco, CA 94105
Gregory L. Evans Michael Healy
8 McGuirewoods LLP Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Wells Fargo Center, South Tower 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
9 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4200 San Francisco, CA 94105
Los Angeles, CA 90071
10 Michael Fox Bryan A. Merryman
Duane Morris LLP White & Case
11 Spear Tower 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071
12 San Francisco, CA 94105
Jameson R. Jones and Daniel R. Brody Megan Berge
13 Bartlit Beck LLP Baker Botts LLP
1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200 101 California Street, Suite 3200
14 Denver, CO 80202 San Francisco, CA 94111
David Bona and Michael C. Cooper Shannon S. Broome and Ann Marie Mortimer
15 Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
One Post Street, Suite 500 50 California Street, Suite 1700
16 San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, CA 94111
Stephen C. Lewis and R. Morgan Gilhuly Steven M. Bauer and Margaret A. Tough
17 Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP Lathan & Watkins LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 525 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
18 San Francisco, CA 94111 San Francisco, CA 94111
Gary T. Lafayette and Brian H. Chun Christopher W. Keegan
19 Lafayette & Kumagi LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP
1300 Clay Street, Suite 810 555 California Street, 27th Floor
20 Oakland, CA 94612 San Francisco, CA 94104
Jason M. Heath and Melissa Shaw Dave Aleshire and Heather McLaughlin
21 Santa Cruz Office of the County Counsel City Attorney’s Office for City of Richmond
County of Santa Cruz City of Richmond
22 701 Ocean Street, Room 505 450 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Richmond, CA 94804
23 Herbert J. Stern and Joel M. Silverstein Brooke A. Noble
Stern & Kilcullen, LLC Vinson & Elkins LLP
24 325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 110 200 West 6th Street, Suite 2500
Florham Park, NJ 07932 Austin, Texas 78701
25
Nancy G. Milburn and Diana E. Reiter Nathan P. Eimer and Lisa S. Meyer
26 Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Eimer Stahl LLP
250 West 55th Street 224 South Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1100
27 New York, NY 10019-9710 Chicago, IL 60604
28
2939763.2 -2-
Proof of Service (17-CV-03242)
1 Gregory Evans Joy C. Fuhr and Brian D. Schmalzbach
McGuire Woods LLP McGuire Woods LLP
2 Wells Fargo Center 800 East Canal Street
South Tower Richmond, VA 23219-3916
3 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4200
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103
4 J. Scott Janoe Sterling A. Marchand
Baker Botts LLP Baker Botts LLP
5 910 Louisiana Street 700 K Street N.W.
Houston, Texas 77002 Washington, D.C. 20001
6 Shawn Patrick Regan Mark McKane, P.C. (SBN 230552)
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP
7 200 Park Avenue 555 California Street
New York, NY 10166-0136 San Francisco, California 94104
8 David C. Frederick, James M. Webster, III,
Daniel S. Severson, and Grace W.
9 Knofczynski
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick,
10 P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
11 Washington, DC 20036
12
On February 7, 2024, I also served copies of the following documents:
13
ï‚· NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR
14
COORDINATION
15
ï‚· EXHIBIT 1 TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING
16 PETITION FOR COORDINATION, which includes:
17 o ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR COORDINATION
18
upon the counsel listed below via email as follows:
19
20 Joshua D. Dick
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
21 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
22 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
jdick@gibsondunn.com
23
Victor M. Sher, Matthew K. Edling, Martin D. Quiñones, Katie H. Jones, and Quentin C.
24 Karpilow
Sher Edling LLP
25 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
San Francisco, CA 94104
26
27
28
2939763.2 -3-
Proof of Service (17-CV-03242)
1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San
2 Francisco, CA on February 7, 2024.
3 /s/ Sarah D. Zandi
Sarah D. Zandi
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2939763.2 -4-
Proof of Service (17-CV-03242)
Preview
1 ROB BONTA EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES Attorney General of California UNDER GOV. CODE SEC. 6103 2 EDWARD H. OCHOA Senior Assistant Attorney General 3 LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 HEATHER M. LEWIS (SBN 291933) ERIN GANAHL (SBN 248472) 5 MARI MAYEDA (SBN 110947) BRIAN CALAVAN (SBN 347724) 6 KATE HAMMOND (SBN 293433) Deputy Attorneys General 7 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P.O. Box 70550 8 Oakland, CA 94612-0550 Telephone: (510) 879-1300 9 Fax: (510) 622-2270 E-mail: Brian.Calavan@doj.ca.gov 10 Attorneys for JCCP Petitioner People of the State of California ex rel. Rob Bonta, 11 Attorney General of California 12 (Additional counsel listed on signature page) 13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 16 Case No. 17-CV-03242 17 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 18 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ROB BONTA v. GRANTING PETITION FOR 19 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION et al., San COORDINATION Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-23- 20 609134; 21 THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually 22 and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. CHEVRON 23 CORPORATION et al., San Mateo Superior Court, Case No. 17-CIV-03222; 24 THE COUNTY OF MARIN, individually and 25 on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 26 OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Marin Superior Court, 27 Case No. CIV-17-02586; 28 2939763.2 -1- Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination – (17-CV-03242) 1 THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE 2 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. 3 CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior Court, Case No. 17-CV-03242; 4 THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, 5 individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. 6 CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Contra 7 Costa Superior Court, Case No. MSC17- 01227; 8 THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually 9 and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON 10 CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior 11 Court, Case No. 17-CV-03243; 12 THE CITY OF RICHMOND, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 13 OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa Superior 14 Court, Case No. MSC18-00055. 15 16 TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE 17 COUNSEL OF RECORD: 18 You are hereby notified that on February 5, 2024, the Hon. Charles S. Treat issued an 19 Order Granting Petition for Coordination for the Fuel Industry Climate Cases, JCCP No. 20 5310, recommending that the coordination proceedings be assigned to San Francisco Superior 21 Court, and that the court having appellate jurisdiction should be the Court of Appeal for the First 22 District. JCCP No. 5310 includes the following actions: 23 1. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ROB BONTA v. EXXON 24 MOBIL CORPORATION et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-23-609134; 25 2. THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF 26 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., San Mateo Superior Court, 27 Case No. 17-CIV-03222; 28 2939763.2 -2- Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination – (17-CV-03242) 1 3. THE COUNTY OF MARIN, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Marin Superior Court, Case No. 3 CIV-17-02586; 4 4. THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE 5 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior 6 Court, Case No. 17-CV-03242; 7 5. THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE 8 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa Superior 9 Court, Case No. MSC17-01227; 10 6. THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF 11 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior Court, 12 Case No. 17-CV-03243; 13 7. THE CITY OF RICHMOND, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa Superior Court, 15 Case No. MSC18-00055. 16 A copy of the Order Granting Petition for Coordination is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 17 Dated: February 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 18 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 19 EDWARD H. OCHOA Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General 20 LAURA J. ZUCKERMAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 21 /s/ Brian Calavan 22 BRIAN CALAVAN HEATHER M. LEWIS 23 ERIN GANAHL MARI MAYEDA 24 KATE HAMMOND Deputy Attorneys General 25 26 27 28 2939763.2 -3- Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination – (17-CV-03242) 1 ELIZABETH J. CABRASER (SBN 083151) ROBERT J. NELSON (SBN 132797) 2 LEXI J. HAZAM (SBN 224457) NIMISH R. DESAI (SBN 244953) 3 KEVIN R. BUDNER (SBN 287271) MICHAEL LEVIN-GESUNDHEIT (SBN 4 292930) WILSON M. DUNLAVEY (SBN 307719) 5 MIRIAM E. MARKS (SBN 332351) CAITLIN M. WOODS (SBN 335601) 6 SARAH D. ZANDI (SBN 339981) AMELIA A. HASELKORN (SBN 339633) 7 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 8 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 9 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 10 Attorneys for JCCP Petitioner Plaintiff People of the State of California 11 ex rel. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2939763.2 -4- Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition for Coordination – (17-CV-03242) EXHIBIT 1 DocuS ign Envelope ID: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20DB84B1A789 r~ 1 2 3 °" ~D FEB O5 202~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 12 Coordination Proceeding JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDI ATIO 13 Special Title (Rule 3.550) PROCEEDING 0 . 5310 14 FUEL INDUSTRY CLIMATE CASES ORD ER GRA TI G PETITIO FOR COORDINATIO 15 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 16 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ROB BONTA v. 17 EX.XO MOBIL CORPORATION et al. , San Francisco Superior Court, Ca e o. CGC-23- 18 609134; 19 THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually 20 and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA , v. CHEVRO 21 CORPORATION et al. San Mateo Superior Court, Case No. 17-CIV-03222; 22 THE COUNTY OF MARI , individually and 23 on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE 24 OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Mari n Superior Court, 25 Ca e o. CIV-17-02586 · 26 THE CO UNTY OF SA N TA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE 27 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. 28 2928096.3 - I- DocuSign Envelope ID: 84053984-6B39--4DC1-A6AD-20DB84B1A789 CHEVRO CORPORATIO et al., Santa Cruz Superior Court, Case o. l 7-CV-03242; 2 3 THE CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE 4 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRO CORPORATIO et al., Contra 5 Costa Superior Court, Case o. MSCl 7- 01227· 6 7 THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al., Santa Cruz Superior 9 Court, Case No. l 7-CV-03243; 10 THE CITY OF RICHMOND, individually 11 and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFOR IA v. CHEVRO 12 CORPORATION et al., Contra Costa Superior Court, Case o. MSC! 8-00055. 13 14 15 For the reasons stated in the attached Tentative Ruling, Ex. A and pursuant to the 16 coordination hearing held before the Hon . Charle S. Treat on January 25 , 2024 at 9 a.m. at 725 17 Court Street, Third Floor, Room 30 I, Martinez, California, the Court grants the petition to 18 coordinate the Fuel industry Climate Cases, JCCP No. 5310, and recommends that the 19 coordination proceedings be assigned to San Francisco Superior Court, and that the court having 20 appellate jurisdiction should be the Court of Appeal for the First District. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 FEB O5 2024 DATED: 23 - - - - - - - - -- - - Judge of the Superior Court 24 CH~RlES S. TREAT 25 26 27 28 2928096.3 -2- DocuSign Envelope ID: 84053984-6839-4DC1-A6AD-20D88481A789 EXHIBIT A DocuSign Envclopo ID: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20OB84B1A789 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 12 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024 severed if they presented the only significant features of unconscionability here. Conclusion Civil Code§ 1670.S(a) provides that "[iJf the court as a matter of law finds [a] contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made[,) the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result." ""'In deciding whether to sever terms rather than to preclude enforcement of the provision altogether, the overarching inquiry is whether the interests of justice would be furthered by severance; the strong preference is to sever unless the agreement is 'permeated' by unconscionability." ... An agreement to arbitrate is considered "permeated" by unconscionability where it contains more than one unconscionable provision."' (De Leon v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, llC (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 476, 492.) Here, both the class action waiver and the PAGA waiver are unconscionable. Consequently, the Arbitration Agreement is "permeated by unconscionability" as defined by the case law. The Court denies the motion to compel arbitration. 2. 9:00AM CASE NUMBER: C23-01514 CASE NAME: AMY STONE VS. AGEMARK CORPORATION *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: LEAVE TO FILE 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY: STONE, AMY *TENTATIVE RULING:* The motion has been mooted by stipulation. 3. 9:00AM CASE NUMBER: JCCPS310 CASE NAME: FUEL INDUSTRY CLIMATE CASES *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: PETITION FOR COORDINATION FILED BY: *TENTATIVE RULING:* These multiple actions are all suits brought by the California Attorney General and by several counties and municipalities in California, suing a number of large energy-industry companies. Broadly summarizing, the suits seek to establish the defendants' responsibility and liability for contributing to global climate change. The Court grants the coordination petition, and recommends that the coordination proceedings be 10 DocuSign Envelope 1D: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20DB84B1A789 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 12 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024 assigned to San Francisco Superior Court. Coordination All parties are in agreement that these cases are complex under California Rule of Court 3.502. They are likewise in unanimous agreement that these actions should be coordinated, proceeding in a single Superior Court under Code of Civil Procedure§ 404 and California Rule of Court 3.524. Accordingly, the petition for coordination is granted. The actions affected are listed here. All had been removed to federal court but all have been remanded. 1. City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corporation, et al.. No. MSC17-01227 (Contra Costa Superior Court) 2. City of Richmond v. Chevron Corporation. et al.. No. MSC-18-00055 (Contra Costa Superior Court) 3. County of Marin v. Chevron Corporation. et al., No. CIV-17-02586 (Marin Superior Court) 4. People of the State of California ex rel. Rob Banta v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.. No. CGC- 23-609134 (San Francisco Superior Court) 5. County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corporation, et al.. No. 17-CIV-03222 (San Mateo Superior Court) 6. County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corporation. et al., No. 17-CV-03242 (Santa Cruz Superior Court) 7. City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corporation, et al.. NO. 17-CV-03243 (Santa Cruz Superior Court) The Court notes that there is also reference in some of the coordination papers of two additional action filed in Alameda Superior Court by the City of Oakland, and in San Francisco Superior Court by the City and County of San Francisco. Those actions were not included in the Judicial Council's Order Assigning Coordination Judge, presumably because at this time they are technically still pending in federal court after removal - but remands to state court are expected any day now, following the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of a remand decision. Counsel for plaintiffs in both cases have filed statements in connection with choice of venue, which the Court has taken into consideration. Once formal remands have been effected, the Court invites a stipulation adding the Oakland and San Francisco cases to the coordination package. Choice of Venue The parties' only disagreement is the selection of the best court in which to coordinate these actions. Plaintiffs are unanimous in requesting that the cases be assigned to the Superior Court for San Francisco County. The defendants that have opined on the point are instead requesting assignment to the Superior Court for Contra Costa County. Failing that, they request in the alternative that the cases be assigned to the Superior Court of Sacramento County. 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 84053984-6839-4OC1-A6AD-20O88481A789 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 12 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024 The undersigned Court is confident that these matters could be appropriately handled in any of these Counties. On consideration of all of the parties' arguments and considerations, however, the Court recommends that the coordination proceedings should occur in the Superior Court of San Francisco County. Defendants' arguments focus largely on the venue statutes, and in particular on the point that one of the actions to be included (although one not yet formally included) is brought by the City and County of San Francisco, thus arguably implicating the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure§ 394 concerning venue in actions brought by a county. However, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the limitations of that statute do not apply to a coordination proceeding. "Once a case has come under the coordination procedure, the place of trial must be determined by the coordination judge unfettered by the narrow perspective of the venue statutes." (Keenan v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 336, 342 (citation omitted).) Moreover, even if§ 394 technically applied, that statute applies equally well to an action brought by a city. Here, one of the actions is brought by the City of Richmond, located in Contra Costa County. Of course, whether or not the venue statutes formally apply, the policy and concerns underlying those statutes, of fairness and impartiality, are manifestly relevant here. But this Court has every confidence that the San Francisco Superior Court c,:in be fully trusted to remain impartial and unbiased in these actions, uninfluenced by the fact that one of the coordinated cases is brought by the City and County of San Francisco- just as the Court is quite confident that the Contra Costa Superior Court would remain entirely uninfluenced by the facts that one of the plaintiffs is the City of Richmond, or that one of the major defendants is Chevron ·corporation, located in this County. If ever there were litigations that could be described as truly global in scope, they are these. There is no plausible reason to believe that either the courts of either county, or (potentially) any jurors in either county, are going to be influenced by the local identities of one or more of the plaintiffs or defendants formally involved in the litigations. Regardless of which governmental entities have brought these lawsuits, the interests potentially affected by the issues in these cases apply equally well to the populations of San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, or indeed any other county, state, or nation on the face of the Earth. These are not lawsuits with a local focus or local stakes. If there turns out to be any challenge in finding unbiased jurors, it will be because of people's views on climate issues, not because of the identities of the government plaintiffs or the locations of the corporate defendants. With fairness and impartiality assured in either venue, that leaves considerations of convenience and practicality. Reading over the service lists in these matters, there are no law firms or legal offices at all in these cases located in Contra Costa County. Indeed, there are only one or two even located elsewhere in the East Bay, namely Oakland -which is at least as convenient to San Francisco as to Martinez. And on the other side of the balance, nearly all of the parties in these actions are represented by law offices located in San Francisco. Those law firms located outside the Bay Area, such as in Los Angeles, 12 DocuSign Envelope 10: 84053984-6B39-4DC1-A6AD-20O884B1A789 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CA DEPARTMENT 12 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES STREAT HEARING DATE: 01/25/2024 also have offices in San Francisco. Moreover, the Court is cognizant that proceedings in these cases are certain to draw large numbers of not only lawyers and their supporting staffs, but press, interested members of the public, and others desiring to observe. The location of the Contra Costa Court, in downtown Martinez, is poorly served by public transportation, and somewhat less convenient than San Francisco to commercial air travel. It has very limited amenities such as nearby hotel accommodations, restaurants, and public parking. Indeed, Martinez often has difficulty finding parking even for the Court's litigants and jurors, without drawing large crowds of law firm personnel, reporters, spectators, or demonstrators. San Francisco will be a far more convenient setting for all of these concerns. The Court also determines that the court having appellate jurisdiction should be the Court of Appeal for the First District. The parties are in no disagreement on this point. Disclosure The Court draws attention to the point that one of the defense counsel firms listed in the case is Latham & Watkins LLP, although that firm has filed nothing in this Court on the present coordination petition. The undersigned Judge was formerly a partner at that firm. However, he has had no affiliation (and substantially no contact) with Latham since he took the bench in 2005, and his prior affiliation has had no effect or influence on the present decision. 4. 9:00 AM CASE NUMBER: L23-01295 CASE NAME: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. PLAMEN GEORGIEV *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED FILED BY: AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK *TENTATIVE RULING:* Plaintiff's unopposed motion to deem matters admitted is granted. All matters included in American Express's first set of requests for admissions (served on or about Ju!S 5, 2023) are deemed admitted. In its Order After Hearing, American Express should spell those matters out verbatim to avoid any ambiguity as to what is so deemed. The Court declines to award sanctions on top of the deemed admissions, but it may do so if there is an untimely response to the requests. 13 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 3 eighteen (18) years and not a party to the action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, San 4 Francisco, CA 94111-3339. I am readily familiar with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, 5 LLP’s practice for collection and processing of documents for overnight delivery. 6 On February 7, 2024, I served copies of the following documents: 7  NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 8 COORDINATION 9  EXHIBIT 1 TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR COORDINATION, which includes: 10 o ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR COORDINATION 11 12 upon the counsel listed below via first-class U.S. mail as follows: 13 John D. Nibbelin, David A. Silberman, and Dawn Sestito Lauren F. Carroll O’Melveny & Myers LLP 14 San Mateo County Counsel 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor 400 County Center, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 15 Redwood City, CA 94063 Jennifer Lyon and Steven E. Boehmer Theodore V. Wells, Jr., Daniel J. Toal, and 16 City Attorney for City of Imperial Beach Kannon K. Shanmugam City of Imperial Beach Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & 17 8100 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite 200 Garrison LLP La Mesa, CA 91942 1285 Avenue of the Americas 18 New York, New York 10019-6064 Yardena R. Zwang-Weissman, Deanne L. Brian E. Washington 19 Miller, and David L. Schrader Marin County Counsel Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP County of Marin 20 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 275 Los Angeles, CA 90071 San Rafael, CA 94903 21 Anthony P. Condotti Daniel J. Bergeson, John D. Pernick, and Atchison, Barisone & Condotti, APC Adam Trigg 22 City Attorney for City of Santa Cruz Bergeson LLP 333 Church Street 111 N. Market St., Suite 600 23 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 San Jose, CA 95113 Ethan D. Dettmer Joshua S. Lipshutz 24 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 25 San Francisco, CA 94105 Washington, D.C. 20036 James C. Hyde, Michael Iannou, and Marie E. Mortimer H. Hartwell 26 Sobieski Vinson & Elkins LLP Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley 555 Mission Street Suite 2000 27 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94105 San Jose, CA 95113 28 2939763.2 -1- Proof of Service (17-CV-03242) 1 Patrick W. Mizell Matthew R. Stammel Vinson & Elkins LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP 2 1001 Fannin Suite 2300 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3900 Houston, TX 77002 Dallas, Texas 75201 3 Jonathan W. Hughes John D. Lombardo Arnold & Porter Arnold & Porter 4 Three Embarcadero Center, Tenth Floor 777 South Figueroa Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Los Angeles, CA 90017 5 Robert E. Dunn and Collin J. Viera Raymond A. Cardozo and T. Connor Eimer Stahl LLP O’Carroll 6 99 South Almaden Boulevard, Suite 600 Reed Smith LLP San Jose, CA 95113 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 7 San Francisco, CA 94105 Gregory L. Evans Michael Healy 8 McGuirewoods LLP Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP Wells Fargo Center, South Tower 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 9 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Los Angeles, CA 90071 10 Michael Fox Bryan A. Merryman Duane Morris LLP White & Case 11 Spear Tower 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700 One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 12 San Francisco, CA 94105 Jameson R. Jones and Daniel R. Brody Megan Berge 13 Bartlit Beck LLP Baker Botts LLP 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200 101 California Street, Suite 3200 14 Denver, CO 80202 San Francisco, CA 94111 David Bona and Michael C. Cooper Shannon S. Broome and Ann Marie Mortimer 15 Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP One Post Street, Suite 500 50 California Street, Suite 1700 16 San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, CA 94111 Stephen C. Lewis and R. Morgan Gilhuly Steven M. Bauer and Margaret A. Tough 17 Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP Lathan & Watkins LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 525 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 18 San Francisco, CA 94111 San Francisco, CA 94111 Gary T. Lafayette and Brian H. Chun Christopher W. Keegan 19 Lafayette & Kumagi LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP 1300 Clay Street, Suite 810 555 California Street, 27th Floor 20 Oakland, CA 94612 San Francisco, CA 94104 Jason M. Heath and Melissa Shaw Dave Aleshire and Heather McLaughlin 21 Santa Cruz Office of the County Counsel City Attorney’s Office for City of Richmond County of Santa Cruz City of Richmond 22 701 Ocean Street, Room 505 450 Civic Center Plaza Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Richmond, CA 94804 23 Herbert J. Stern and Joel M. Silverstein Brooke A. Noble Stern & Kilcullen, LLC Vinson & Elkins LLP 24 325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 110 200 West 6th Street, Suite 2500 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Austin, Texas 78701 25 Nancy G. Milburn and Diana E. Reiter Nathan P. Eimer and Lisa S. Meyer 26 Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Eimer Stahl LLP 250 West 55th Street 224 South Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1100 27 New York, NY 10019-9710 Chicago, IL 60604 28 2939763.2 -2- Proof of Service (17-CV-03242) 1 Gregory Evans Joy C. Fuhr and Brian D. Schmalzbach McGuire Woods LLP McGuire Woods LLP 2 Wells Fargo Center 800 East Canal Street South Tower Richmond, VA 23219-3916 3 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3103 4 J. Scott Janoe Sterling A. Marchand Baker Botts LLP Baker Botts LLP 5 910 Louisiana Street 700 K Street N.W. Houston, Texas 77002 Washington, D.C. 20001 6 Shawn Patrick Regan Mark McKane, P.C. (SBN 230552) Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP 7 200 Park Avenue 555 California Street New York, NY 10166-0136 San Francisco, California 94104 8 David C. Frederick, James M. Webster, III, Daniel S. Severson, and Grace W. 9 Knofczynski Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, 10 P.L.L.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 11 Washington, DC 20036 12 On February 7, 2024, I also served copies of the following documents: 13  NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 14 COORDINATION 15  EXHIBIT 1 TO THE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING 16 PETITION FOR COORDINATION, which includes: 17 o ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR COORDINATION 18 upon the counsel listed below via email as follows: 19 20 Joshua D. Dick Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 21 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 22 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 jdick@gibsondunn.com 23 Victor M. Sher, Matthew K. Edling, Martin D. Quiñones, Katie H. Jones, and Quentin C. 24 Karpilow Sher Edling LLP 25 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410 San Francisco, CA 94104 26 27 28 2939763.2 -3- Proof of Service (17-CV-03242) 1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San 2 Francisco, CA on February 7, 2024. 3 /s/ Sarah D. Zandi Sarah D. Zandi 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2939763.2 -4- Proof of Service (17-CV-03242)