Preview
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Exempt from filing fee pursuant to
Phillip R. Kaplan (SBN 76949) Government Code § 6103
2 Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685)
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor ELECTRONICALLY
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-7450
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco
Email: pkaplan@manatt.com 08/12/2020
5 Email: bwlee@manatt.com Clerk of the Court
BY: RONNIE OTERO
Deputy Clerk
6 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Colin C. West (SBN 184095)
7 One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105-1596
8 Telephone: (415) 422-1000
Facsimile: (415) 422-1101
9 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com
10 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Marcia Scully (SBN 80648)
11 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907)
Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745)
12 700 North Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944
13 Telephone: (213) 217-6834
Facsimile: (213) 217-6890
14 Email: pquilizapa@mwdh2o.com
15 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
16
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004
19 AUTHORITY,
Assigned for all purposes to the
20 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Hon. Ann-Christine Massullo, Dept. 304
21 v. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S
22 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL THE STAY AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE
23 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY AMENDED COMPLAINT
OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE
24 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Date: August 25, 2020
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, Time: 10:00 a.m.
25 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2016;
and DOES 1-10,
26
Respondents and Defendants.
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
4
A. THE 2010 AND 2012 ACTIONS ........................................................................... 2
5 B. THE 2014 ACTION ................................................................................................ 3
6 C. THE 2016 ACTION ................................................................................................ 4
D. THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS
7 IN THE 2010 AND 2012 ACTIONS ...................................................................... 5
8 III. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED OR CONTINUED .............................................. 6
A. THE STAYS SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL AFTER THE TIME
9 PERIOD TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT IN THE 2010 AND 2012
ACTIONS HAS ELAPSED. ................................................................................... 7
10
B. THE 2014 AND 2016 ACTIONS HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS IN
11 COMMON WITH THE 2010 AND 2012 ACTIONS THAT COULD BE
THE SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL AND LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT
12 SAN DIEGO IMPROPERLY SEEKS TO ENCOMPASS IN ITS
CURRENTLY PENDING PROPOSED WRIT OF MANDATE. ......................... 7
13 C. THE STAYS SHOULD ALSO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE 2018
ACTION IS ASSIGNED TO THIS COURT AND SAN DIEGO FILES A
14 MOTION TO LIFT STAY IN THAT CASE. ...................................................... 10
15 D. THE REMAINING CASES SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED BEFORE
THE STAYS ARE LIFTED.................................................................................. 10
16 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 11
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS & -i-
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
3 CASES
4 Comm. for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells,
225 Cal. App. 3d 191 (1990)................................................................................................... 10
5
Cottle v. Superior Court,
6 3 Cal. App. 4th 1367 (1992)...................................................................................................... 6
Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising,
7
85 Cal. App. 4th 1168 (2000).................................................................................................... 7
8 Lindsay Strathmore Irr. Dist. v. Superior Court,
121 Cal. App. 606 (1932).......................................................................................................... 6
9
San Diego Cty. Water Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. California,
10 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124 (2017), as modified on denial of reh’g (July 18, 2017), review
denied (Sept. 27, 2017) ..................................................................................................... 4, 5, 6
11
Sanchez v. Superior Court,
12 203 Cal. App. 3d 1391 (1988)................................................................................................. 10
13 STATUTES
Code Civ. Proc. § 870 ..................................................................................................................... 3
14
Code Civ. Proc. § 916 ..................................................................................................................... 7
15
Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a) ................................................................................................................. 4
16 Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) ............................................................................................................. 10
17 Water Code § 1811(c) ..................................................................................................................... 5
18 Water Code appen. §109-25 ............................................................................................................ 2
Water Code appen. §109-30 ............................................................................................................ 2
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS & -ii-
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Petitioner and Plaintiff San Diego County Water Authority (“San Diego”) seeks to
3 prematurely lift stays and begin litigating cases that should remain stayed for a short period until
4 after it is known if an appeal in San Diego’s related cases will affect the litigation. Judgment in
5 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of California, et al., Case No.
6 CPF-10-510830 (“2010 Action”) and Case No. CPF-12-512466 (“2012 Action”) will soon issue.
7 Under the validation statute, the parties will have 30 days to appeal. An appeal by either party in
8 the 2010 and 2012 Actions can substantively affect San Diego’s related above-captioned Case
9 No. CPF-14-514004 (“2014 Action”), Case No. CPF-16-515282 (“2016 Action”), and Case No.
10 SFSC-18-516389 (“2018 Action”) against Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water
11 District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”).
12 For example, San Diego has indicated that the writ of mandate in the 2010 and 2012
13 Actions will already decide claims in the three later actions. This is incorrect. This and other
14 significant disputes may be the subject of an appeal that may well be filed shortly after entry of
15 judgment. Metropolitan requests that the Court first issue the judgment and writ, if any, in the
16 2010 and 2012 Actions and allow the statutory 30 days to pass before the Court considers San
17 Diego’s request to proceed with litigating the later cases. At that point, any appeal of one or both
18 parties will have been filed and it will be known whether there are matters pending on appeal that
19 will substantively affect adjudication of the subsequent related cases.
20 San Diego’s motions to lift the stay and file amended Petitions/Complaints in the 2014
21 and 2016 Actions should thus be denied or continued at this time. Metropolitan respectfully
22 requests only that the Court hold a case management conference to address the stays and San
23 Diego’s request to proceed with litigating the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions, including its new
24 claims in each of those cases, after the 30-day appeal period in the 2010 and 2012 Actions has
25 passed.
26 II. BACKGROUND
27 Metropolitan, a local government agency, is a voluntary cooperative of 26 member
28 agencies in Southern California, including San Diego. Metropolitan is governed by a Board of
M ANATT , P HELPS & -1-
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 Directors (“Board”) comprised solely of representatives appointed by its member agencies. San
2 Diego is one of those member agencies, as are the nine member agencies that have joined the
3 cases as interested parties in support of Metropolitan. 1
4 Metropolitan was created in 1928 by the voters of several Southern California cities that
5 sought to obtain a supplemental supply of water for domestic and municipal uses and purposes,
6 which they could not each obtain individually. See Wat. Code appen., §§109-25, 109-30.
7 Subsequently, the voters within other cities and the areas of local water districts also voted to join
8 Metropolitan for the purpose of securing water resources and services not available to them
9 without regional cooperation, including due to the small size of their service area, geographical
10 factors limiting their access to local or imported water, or a local preference not to invest
11 independently in water resources or infrastructure. Today, Metropolitan serves as a supplemental
12 supplier to a region with nearly 19 million people, providing wholesale water service to its
13 member agencies if and to the extent these agencies opt to purchase it.
14 A. The 2010 and 2012 Actions
15 San Diego filed the 2010 Action on June 11, 2010, challenging the rates Metropolitan
16 adopted in April 2010 for the years 2011 and 2012. San Diego argued that Metropolitan
17 unlawfully allocated to its transportation rates and wheeling rate (1) the transportation costs
18 Metropolitan incurred under its State Water Project (“SWP”) contract with the California
19 Department of Water Resources for participation in the SWP, and (2) the costs it incurred to fund
20 local water resource development and conservation (“demand management” programs) through
21 the Water Stewardship Rate (“WSR”). As detailed more fully in Metropolitan’s recently briefed
22 motion for entry of judgment, San Diego later amended the 2010 Petition/Complaint to add a
23 cause of action for breach of the Exchange Agreement between the parties that contains a price
24 term based only on the transportation rate components of Metropolitan’s full service rate, as well
25 1
In addition to Metropolitan, the following Metropolitan member agencies are Real Party in
Interest Respondents as to the first three causes of action (the rate challenges) in each of the
26 Actions, in support of Metropolitan: City of Los Angeles, acting by and through its Department of
Water and Power, City of Torrance, Eastern Municipal Water District, Foothill Municipal Water
27 District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County,
Three Valleys Municipal Water District, West Basin Municipal Water District and Western
28 Municipal Water District.
M ANATT , P HELPS & 2
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 as other causes of action separate and distinct from the rate challenge.
2 In April 2012, Metropolitan, consistent with its biennial practice, adopted its rates for
3 2013 and 2014. San Diego then filed the 2012 Action, repeating in substantial part the claims in
4 the first four causes of action in the 2010 Action but challenging Metropolitan’s transportation
5 rates and wheeling rate for 2013-2014, and adding a “dry year peaking” rate challenge. The 2012
6 Petition/Complaint included four causes of action: (1) writ of mandate, (2) declaratory relief, (3)
7 determination of invalidity, and (4) breach of contract. The 2010 and 2012 Actions were heard
8 and tried before the Honorable Curtis E.A. Karnow.
9 B. The 2014 Action
10 In April 2014, while the 2010 and 2012 Actions were pending before Judge Karnow,
11 Metropolitan adopted its rates for 2015 and 2016. In June 2014, San Diego challenged those rates
12 by filing the 2014 Action, asserting the same allegations as in the earlier actions but based on the
13 2014 administrative record. The parties agreed that the 2014 Action was related to the 2010 and
14 2012 Actions and should be stayed, and the Court ordered the stay pursuant to the parties’
15 stipulation. See Declaration of Barry W. Lee In Support of Metropolitan’s Opposition to Motion
16 to Motion to Lift Stay and File Amended Complaint (“Lee Decl.”), Ex. D. The basis of that
17 determination was that the 2014 Action involved the same parties and involved factual and legal
18 issues substantially similar to those implicated by the 2010 and 2012 Actions. See id. The parties
19 and the Court thus determined that it was “in the interests of judicial economy and conservation
20 of the scarce resources of the California courts and the Parties” to await final resolution of those
21 actions prior to moving forward with the 2014 Action, even though the 2010 and 2012 Actions
22 were not yet on appeal. Id. Similarly, this Court is about to enter judgment in the 2010 and 2012
23 Actions and the parties will have 30 days to appeal. Code Civ. Proc. § 870. Metropolitan requests
24 that the stays remain in place until after expiration of that period so that the parties and the Court
25 will know the extent to which issues on appeal overlap with issues to be tried in the remaining
26 cases.
27 On April 24, 2014, the Court issued a Statement of Decision in the 2010 and 2012
28 Actions, ruling that there was not substantial evidence in the 2010 and 2012 records to support
M ANATT , P HELPS & 3
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 Metropolitan’s allocation of 100% of its SWP transportation costs and 100% of its demand
2 management costs to transportation, and ruling in Metropolitan’s favor on the “dry year peaking”
3 claims. (The Court previously dismissed certain other claims in the 2010 Action on demurrer and
4 motion for summary adjudication.)
5 The 2010 and 2012 Actions continued to a Phase II trial, addressing San Diego’s breach
6 of contract claims and “preferential rights” claim. A judgment was entered on November 18,
7 2015. The Court also issued a peremptory writ of mandate, granted in the judgment, which
8 commanded Metropolitan to enact transportation rates and wheeling rates “in the future” without
9 doing “the things th[e] Court held were illegal and/or unconstitutional in the Court’s April 24,
10 2014 Statement of Decision[.]” MWD appealed the judgment. The appeal—San Diego Cty. Water
11 Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. California, 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124 (2017), as modified on denial
12 of reh’g (July 18, 2017), review denied (Sept. 27, 2017) (“SDCWA”)—stayed enforcement of the
13 judgment and writ. See Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a).
14 Following entry of the judgment and issuance of the writ of mandate, San Diego
15 attempted to partially lift the stipulated stay in the 2014 Action to require Metropolitan to prepare
16 and lodge the administrative record for that case. See Lee Decl. ¶ 4. The Court denied San
17 Diego’s motion on December 21, 2015, concluding that: (1) “the result of the pending appeal may
18 moot at [sic] some issues, affecting the scope of the administrative record which Met would
19 assemble for the new case”; (2) the Court should not entertain whether the preparation of the
20 2014 administrative record affects the preparation of the future 2016 administrative record, as San
21 Diego claimed; and (3) the Court should not move forward with summary adjudication in the
22 2014 Action pending the appeal of the 2010 and 2012 Actions. Lee Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. E.
23 C. The 2016 Action
24 Continuing its biennial process, Metropolitan adopted its budget and rates and charges on
25 April 12, 2016 for 2017 and 2018, which San Diego challenged in the 2016 Action. The operative
26 2016 Petition/Complaint (and the Proposed Second Amended Petition/Complaint) alleges that the
27 2017 and 2018 rates are unlawful for legal and factual reasons similar to San Diego’s claims in
28 the 2010, 2012, and 2014 Actions. The operative 2016 Petition/Complaint also adds new and
M ANATT , P HELPS & 4
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 different challenges to Metropolitan’s rates, and new challenges to Metropolitan’s charges,
2 budget, financial forecasting, and various practices, which were never asserted in prior cases.
3 On April 25, 2016, San Diego filed notices of related cases, stating that the 2016 Action
4 “involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims” and “arises from the same
5 or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same
6 or substantially identical questions of law or fact,” as the 2010, 2012, and 2014 Actions. Lee
7 Decl., Exs. A-C.
8 On November 10, 2016—just as they had done in the 2014 Action—the parties stipulated
9 to a stay of the 2016 Action, and the Court approved the stipulation. Lee Decl., Ex. F. On July 24,
10 2018, after the 2010 and 2012 Actions were remanded to this Court and the 2016 Action was
11 assigned to Department 305 for all purposes, the parties again stipulated to stay the 2016 Action,
12 agreeing that the stay remained in the interests of judicial economy. Id., Ex.
13 D. The Court of Appeal Decision and Remand Proceedings in the 2010 and 2012
Actions
14
15 Metropolitan appealed the judgment and attorney fees award in the 2010 and 2012
16 Actions. San Diego cross-appealed the Court’s fees award and the order granting summary
17 adjudication in Metropolitan’s favor on San Diego’s claim challenging Metropolitan’s Rate
18 Structure Integrity (“RSI”) Clause. On June 21, 2017, the Court of Appeal issued its decision,
19 reversing the judgment and vacating the writ. SDCWA, 12 Cal. App. 5th at 1166.
20 Relevant here, the Court of Appeal held that there was not substantial evidence in the
21 record before it to support inclusion of the WSR in the transportation rates and wheeling rate in
22 2011-2014, so the inclusion violated the common law and inclusion in the wheeling rate for those
23 years also violated California Water Code Section 1811(c). Id. at 1150-54. The Court of Appeal
24 also held that based on the record before it, Metropolitan’s inclusion of the WSR in the Exchange
25 Agreement price term for 2011-2014 constituted a breach of that Agreement and “[San Diego] is
26 entitled to recover damages limited to the overcharges attributable to the unlawful inclusion of the
27 water stewardship rate.” SDCWA, 12 Cal. App. 5th at 1154. The Court of Appeal further clarified
28 that “[t]he legality of the water stewardship fee as a component of Metropolitan’s full‐service
M ANATT , P HELPS & 5
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 water rate is not at issue here and we express no opinion on the matter,” meaning the legality of
2 the WSR as part of Metropolitan’s full-service water sales was not at issue in the case. Id. at
3 1152, n.16. The Court of Appeal remanded the action “to the trial court for recalculation of
4 damages [based solely on overcharges from inclusion of the WSR], entry of declaratory relief on
5 the Rate Structure Integrity clause, redetermination of the prevailing party, and other proceedings
6 consistent with the views expressed in [its] opinion.” Id. at 1166.
7 Following remand of the 2010 and 2012 Actions, each party submitted opening and
8 response briefs to determine the scope of the proceedings on remand. This Court entered its Order
9 Re Scope of Remand Proceedings Following Remand in July 2018 (“Order Re Scope”), ordering,
10 among other things, that on San Diego’s fifth cause of action, San Diego is entitled to further
11 proceedings to litigate the issue of San Diego’s entitlement to RSI Clause restitution. (Order Re
12 Scope, 7:6-8; 8:20-22.) On February 28, 2020, San Diego notified the Court that San Diego
13 would not further pursue restitution on its fifth cause of action in the 2010 Action, and that the
14 2010 and 2012 Actions were ripe for judgment.
15 This Court will soon enter judgment in the consolidated 2010 and 2012 Actions. On June
16 17, 2020, the parties filed cross motions for entry of judgment, which were heard on July 30,
17 2020. On July 31, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the motions in part and denying them
18 in part and instructing the parties to submit proposed judgments and writs, which the parties did
19 on August 6, 2020. Once judgment is entered, the parties will have 30 days to appeal.
20 III. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED OR CONTINUED
21 This Court has the inherent authority to not only stay cases, but also to keep a stay in place
22 “in the interests of judicial economy and conservation of the scarce resources of the California
23 courts and the Parties.” See Lee Decl., Ex. D at 1:19-21; see also Cottle v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.
24 App. 4th 1367, 1378 (1992) (“Every court has the inherent power to regulate the proceedings of
25 matters before it and to effect an orderly disposition of the issues presented.”). It is particularly
26 appropriate for the Court to exercise its inherent power to await appellate results in another action
27 that might resolve certain issues in the stayed action. See Lindsay Strathmore Irr. Dist. v.
28 Superior Court, 121 Cal. App. 606, 611-15 (1932) (court exercised power to coordinate trial court
M ANATT , P HELPS & 6
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 proceedings with outcomes of a pending appeal in a different case). Doing so would be consistent
2 with Code of Civil Procedure Section 916. Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
3 Franchising, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1173 (2000). Here, either or both parties may appeal certain
4 aspects of the judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions. Metropolitan requests only that the Court
5 delay deciding San Diego’s Motions until after the time to appeal has elapsed so that the parties
6 and the Court can properly evaluate the potential effect of any appealed issues on the remaining
7 cases in order to permit the efficient and effective management of the remaining cases.
8 A. The stays should remain in place until after the time period to appeal the
judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions has elapsed.
9
10 San Diego argues that the stays should be lifted in the 2014 and 2016 because there is no
11 longer a risk of inconsistent pleadings or judgments because every issue in the 2010 and 2012
12 Actions has been decided. But San Diego cannot know that until the period to appeal the
13 judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions has expired. The 2014 and 2016 Actions should remain
14 stayed at least until after judgment is entered in the 2010 and 2012 Actions and the 30-day period
15 to appeal has elapsed. At that point, any appeal by one or both parties will have been filed and it
16 will be known whether there are matters pending on appeal that will substantively affect
17 questions of law in the 2014 and 2016 Actions.
18 B. The 2014 and 2016 Actions have legal questions in common with the 2010 and
2012 Actions that could be the subject of an appeal and legal questions that
19 San Diego improperly seeks to encompass in its currently pending proposed
writ of mandate.
20
21 Throughout the history of these cases—including when agreeing to stay the 2014 and
22 2016 Actions—the parties have agreed that these cases are all closely related, that proceedings in
23 the 2010 and 2012 Actions should conclude before the other cases are litigated, and that all the
24 cases involve significant common legal questions that should impact the Court’s management of
25 each case. See, e.g., Lee Decl., Ex. F at 2:7-12 (“San Diego, MWD and the Member Agencies all
26 agree that it is in the interests of judicial economy and the parties to stay this action . . . pending
27 final resolution of the appeal” in the 2010 and 2012 Actions). 2 Nothing has changed; these cases
28 2
For instance, on April 25, 2016, San Diego filed Notices of Related Case, giving notice that the
M ANATT , P HELPS & 7
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 remain related.
2 San Diego also argues that none of the issues raised in either the 2014 Action or the 2016
3 Action warrant a further stay of those cases. But San Diego also acknowledges that the first issue
4 in both cases is “whether Metropolitan’s continued imposition3 of the Water Stewardship Rate on
5 wheeling, and as part of the price charged to the Water Authority in the Exchange Agreement,
6 renders Metropolitan’s [2015 through 2018] wheeling and transportation rates illegal, and
7 relatedly breaches the Exchange Agreement.” 2014 Motion at 11:15-18; 2016 Motion at 12:2-5.
8 San Diego submitted a proposed judgment and writ in the 2010 and 2012 Actions that purports to
9 decide that issue in the 2014 and 2016 Actions before the pleadings in either of the later cases
10 have even been set. And regardless of the exact language of the judgment and writ, San Diego has
11 argued (and undoubtedly will continue to argue) that the fate of the WSR was decided in the 2010
12 and 2012 Action for all subsequent years even though the scope of the trial court’s and Court of
13 Appeal’s decisions was expressly limited to the transportation rates and wheeling rate set in 2010
14 and 2012 and based on the records for those years. See Lee Decl. Ex. I (July 30, 2020 hearing
15 transcript) at 23:14-24. The 2010 and 2012 Actions thus continue to overlap with the remaining
16 cases.
17 To be precise, San Diego has argued for a writ in the 2010 and 2012 Actions commanding
18 Metropolitan to “exclude the costs of conservation programs and other demand management
19 programs, imposed in these cases as the Water Stewardship Rate, from Metropolitan’s wheeling
20 rate published in Section 4405 of Metropolitan’s Administrative Code and from the transportation
21 rates charged under the Exchange Agreement.” (SD Proposed Jgmt. After July 30, 2020 Hearing
22 at 1:10-14.) San Diego’s proposed judgment and writ thus purport to reach rates that Metropolitan
23 set in 2014, 2016, and 2018—none of which were at issue in the 2010 or 2012 Actions, and all of
24 which involve different records than in the 2010 and 2012 Actions.
25
2016 Action: (1) “involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims,” and (2)
26 “arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the
determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact,” as the 2010 Action,
27 2012 Action, and 2014 Action.
3
As the Court is aware, whether Metropolitan’s rates are imposed, and thus whether Proposition
28 26 can apply, is a disputed issue.
M ANATT , P HELPS & 8
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 The 2014 Action expressly places certain of Metropolitan’s 2015-2016 rates at issue for
2 the first time. See Proposed 2014 FAC ¶¶ 34-36 (alleging that Metropolitan’s wheeling and
3 transportation rates for calendar years 2015 and 2016 are unlawful because they include the
4 WSR); 61-72 (San Diego’s first cause of action seeking a writ of mandate regarding
5 “misallocation of costs in 2015 and 2016 transportation and wheeling rates and Full Service
6 Exchange Cost”); 73-79 (San Diego’s second cause of action seeking declaratory relief regarding
7 “misallocation of costs in 2015 and 2016 transportation and wheeling rates and Full Service
8 Exchange Cost”); 80-85 (San Diego’s third cause of action seeking a determination of invalidity
9 of certain rates adopted in 2014—i.e., Metropolitan’s rates for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years);
10 43-44 and 86-91 (San Diego’s fourth cause of action alleging breach of contract based in part on
11 Metropolitan’s inclusion of the WSR in its 2015-2016 transportation rates and wheeling rate).
12 Similarly, the 2016 Action places certain of Metropolitan’s rates for the 2017 and 2018
13 calendar years at issue for the first time. See Proposed 2016 SAC ¶¶ 36-37 (alleging that inclusion
14 of the WSR in Metropolitan’s 2017-2018 transportation rates and wheeling rate is unlawful); 53-
15 64 (San Diego’s first cause of action seeking a writ regarding “misallocation of costs in 2017 and
16 2018 transportation rates and wheeling rate”); 65-71 (second cause of action seeking declaratory
17 relief regarding “misallocation of costs in 2017 and 2018 transportation rates and wheeling rate”);
18 42-45 and 72-77 (third cause of action seeking determination of invalidity of certain rates
19 Metropolitan adopted in 2016); 78-83 (fourth cause of action for breach of contract based in part
20 on the WSR).
21 In contrast, in the 2010 and 2012 Actions, the Court of Appeal determined that the record
22 for 2011-2014 did not support Metropolitan’s inclusion of the WSR in its transportation rates and
23 wheeling rate for those years. Metropolitan’s rates for other years were not at issue, and the
24 subsequent years’ administrative records have not been compiled or submitted. Nevertheless, San
25 Diego has taken the position that judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions is dispositive of its
26 WSR claims in the remaining cases. The Court of Appeal may need to resolve the tension
27 between San Diego and Metropolitan’s positions.
28 It would be inefficient to proceed with trial in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions without
M ANATT , P HELPS & 9
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 resolving this and potentially other issues. If the stays are lifted and Metropolitan is precluded
2 from demonstrating that substantial evidence in the administrative records for the 2014 and 2016
3 Actions supports inclusion of the WSR in its transportation rates and wheeling rate, a retrial of
4 both cases could be required after appeal of the judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions. It would
5 be inefficient to lift the stays now—which will trigger a request for preparation of the
6 administrative records in each remaining case and likely discovery requests from San Diego—
7 until the scope of any forthcoming appeal is known by the parties and the Court.
8 C. The stays should also remain in place until the 2018 Action is assigned to this
Court and San Diego files a motion to lift stay in that case.
9
10 San Diego also intends to file a motion for leave to file an amended Petition/Complaint in
11 the 2018 Action once that case is designated complex and assigned to this Court. Lee Decl., Ex. H
12 at 5:16-19. Judicial economy favors deciding that motion at the same time as the similar pending
13 motions in the other cases. It also favors not lifting the stay in the 2014 Action or 2016 Action or
14 starting the clock on Metropolitan’s time to respond to the amended pleadings in those cases until
15 the 2018 Action is assigned to this Court. Metropolitan should be permitted to address common
16 issues and deficiencies in the three pleadings at the same time instead of on a piecemeal basis.
17 D. The remaining cases should be consolidated before the stays are lifted.
18 The parties agree that after entry of judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions, the remaining
19 cases (2014, 2016, and 2018) should be consolidated before this Court with the 2014 Action as
20 the lead case. The parties also agree that these cases involve common questions of law and fact,
21 and consolidation would “tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a).
22 Courts also consolidate cases for limited purposes such as determining common legal questions
23 for the sake of convenience, judicial economy and avoiding the risk of inconsistent rulings. See,
24 e.g., Sanchez v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1391, 1396 (1988) (“In a consolidation for trial,
25 the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried
26 together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.”); accord Comm. for Responsible
27 Planning v. City of Indian Wells, 225 Cal. App. 3d 191, 196-97 (1990). Here, consolidation (and
28 continuing the stay) is warranted to ensure that common legal questions are uniformly resolved
M ANATT , P HELPS & 10
P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004
1 rather than repeatedly litigated in seriatim lawsuits with the risk of conflicting findings and
2 rulings.
3 IV. CONCLUSION
4 Metropolitan respectfully requests that the Court deny or continue the motions and keep
5 the stays in place until after judgment is entered in the 2010 Action and the 2012 Action, and the
6 30-day appeal period has elapsed. If neither party appeals and the judgment becomes final, it may
7 make sense to lift the stay in one or all of the remaining cases. If, on the other hand, one or both
8 parties appeal, issues on appeal could significantly impact the remaining cases. Metropolitan
9 respectfully requests that the Court hold a case management conference to address the stays and
10 San Diego’s request to proceed with litigating the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions, including its
11 new claims in each of those cases, after the 30-day appeal period in the 2010 and 2012 Actions
12 has passed.
13
Dated: August 12, 2020 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
14
15
By: /s/ Barry W. Lee
16
Related Content
in San Francisco County
Ruling
PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING, A DELAWARE VS. ASURE PAYROLL TAX MANAGEMENT LLC, A DELAWARE LLC ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC24615613
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 15. PLAINTIFF PEOPLE CENTER, INC. D/B/A RIPPLING's Motion For Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 1:30 p.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
A & A GENERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INC., A VS. ARLENE S. TASIM ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC23609755
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 12, 2024, Line 12. DEFENDANT ARLENE TASIM AND ALI TASIM'S Motion For Sanctions Against A A General Building Construction Inc. Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Section 1281.99. Defendants and Cross-Complainants' unopposed Motion for Sanctions in the amount of $8350.00 is granted (CCP section 1281.99), payment to be made within 30 days of the filing of this order. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
YOLANDA JONES ET AL VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC23609805
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 10. 2 - DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC's MOTION TO STRIKE 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Off calendar. The Quezada declaration fails to show that the parties met and conferred "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" in compliance with CCP 435.5. The parties are ordered to comply with the code. The response to the complaint is now due August 7, 2024. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
EDWARD WESTERMAN VS. FTI CONSULTING, INC. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC24615152
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 12. PLAINTIFF EDWARD WESTERMAN's Motion To Seal. Plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
CLEAR HOMES LLC, A NEW MEXICO LIMITED LIABILITY VS. BRENDAN MICHAEL WEE ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC23607972
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 11, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT BRENDAN WEE, ERIKA HILTON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is Off Calendar - Per request of moving party. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
ELIANE DOS SANTOS VITAL, AN INDIVIDUAL ET AL VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC22601133
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, Jul-12-2024, Line 2, PLAINTIFFS ELIANE DOS SANTOS VITAL, AN INDIVIDUAL, and WIDES VITAL DA SILVA'S, AN INDIVIDUAL, Motion To Compel Further Responses To Plaintiffs Request For Production Of Documents, Set Two. Pro Tem Judge William Lynn, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Parties to appear if the motion remains unresolved. For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to williamclynn@gmail.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JPT)
Ruling
Y.P. VS. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC24613065
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 12. DEFENDANT EARL IGNACIO AND WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'s Motion To Compel Arbitration. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Earl Ignacio's motion to compel arbitration and stay is denied. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
MARY ELIZABETH LEMASTERS VS. SCHOENBERG FAMILY LAW GROUP P.C. ET AL
Jul 09, 2024 |
CGC22600572
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, July 9, 2024, Line 4. PLAINTIFF MARY LEMASTERS' MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Hearing required. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
JOHN P BERNARD VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC23608339
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 8. PLAINTIFF JOHN BERNARD's Motion For Award Of Attorneys Fees, Costs, And Expenses. Off calendar for noncompliance with Local Rule 2.7(B) (courtesy copies). The motion may be re-set for a Mon.-Thurs. after July 24, with papers to bear new hearing date. In meantime, counsel shall meet and confer to resolve their differences. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Preview
1 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP Exempt from filing fee pursuant to Phillip R. Kaplan (SBN 76949) Government Code § 6103 2 Barry W. Lee (SBN 88685) One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor ELECTRONICALLY 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-7450 F I L E D Superior Court of California, 4 Facsimile: (415) 291-7474 County of San Francisco Email: pkaplan@manatt.com 08/12/2020 5 Email: bwlee@manatt.com Clerk of the Court BY: RONNIE OTERO Deputy Clerk 6 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Colin C. West (SBN 184095) 7 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105-1596 8 Telephone: (415) 422-1000 Facsimile: (415) 422-1101 9 Email: colin.west@morganlewis.com 10 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Marcia Scully (SBN 80648) 11 Heather C. Beatty (SBN 161907) Patricia J. Quilizapa (SBN 233745) 12 700 North Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-2944 13 Telephone: (213) 217-6834 Facsimile: (213) 217-6890 14 Email: pquilizapa@mwdh2o.com 15 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 18 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER Case No. CPF-14-514004 19 AUTHORITY, Assigned for all purposes to the 20 Petitioner and Plaintiff, Hon. Ann-Christine Massullo, Dept. 304 21 v. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’S 22 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ALL THE STAY AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE 23 PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY AMENDED COMPLAINT OF THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE 24 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF Date: August 25, 2020 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 8, Time: 10:00 a.m. 25 2014 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2016; and DOES 1-10, 26 Respondents and Defendants. 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1 4 A. THE 2010 AND 2012 ACTIONS ........................................................................... 2 5 B. THE 2014 ACTION ................................................................................................ 3 6 C. THE 2016 ACTION ................................................................................................ 4 D. THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS 7 IN THE 2010 AND 2012 ACTIONS ...................................................................... 5 8 III. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED OR CONTINUED .............................................. 6 A. THE STAYS SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL AFTER THE TIME 9 PERIOD TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT IN THE 2010 AND 2012 ACTIONS HAS ELAPSED. ................................................................................... 7 10 B. THE 2014 AND 2016 ACTIONS HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS IN 11 COMMON WITH THE 2010 AND 2012 ACTIONS THAT COULD BE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL AND LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT 12 SAN DIEGO IMPROPERLY SEEKS TO ENCOMPASS IN ITS CURRENTLY PENDING PROPOSED WRIT OF MANDATE. ......................... 7 13 C. THE STAYS SHOULD ALSO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE 2018 ACTION IS ASSIGNED TO THIS COURT AND SAN DIEGO FILES A 14 MOTION TO LIFT STAY IN THAT CASE. ...................................................... 10 15 D. THE REMAINING CASES SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE STAYS ARE LIFTED.................................................................................. 10 16 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & -i- P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 CASES 4 Comm. for Responsible Planning v. City of Indian Wells, 225 Cal. App. 3d 191 (1990)................................................................................................... 10 5 Cottle v. Superior Court, 6 3 Cal. App. 4th 1367 (1992)...................................................................................................... 6 Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising, 7 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168 (2000).................................................................................................... 7 8 Lindsay Strathmore Irr. Dist. v. Superior Court, 121 Cal. App. 606 (1932).......................................................................................................... 6 9 San Diego Cty. Water Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. California, 10 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124 (2017), as modified on denial of reh’g (July 18, 2017), review denied (Sept. 27, 2017) ..................................................................................................... 4, 5, 6 11 Sanchez v. Superior Court, 12 203 Cal. App. 3d 1391 (1988)................................................................................................. 10 13 STATUTES Code Civ. Proc. § 870 ..................................................................................................................... 3 14 Code Civ. Proc. § 916 ..................................................................................................................... 7 15 Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a) ................................................................................................................. 4 16 Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) ............................................................................................................. 10 17 Water Code § 1811(c) ..................................................................................................................... 5 18 Water Code appen. §109-25 ............................................................................................................ 2 Water Code appen. §109-30 ............................................................................................................ 2 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 M ANATT , P HELPS & -ii- P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Petitioner and Plaintiff San Diego County Water Authority (“San Diego”) seeks to 3 prematurely lift stays and begin litigating cases that should remain stayed for a short period until 4 after it is known if an appeal in San Diego’s related cases will affect the litigation. Judgment in 5 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of California, et al., Case No. 6 CPF-10-510830 (“2010 Action”) and Case No. CPF-12-512466 (“2012 Action”) will soon issue. 7 Under the validation statute, the parties will have 30 days to appeal. An appeal by either party in 8 the 2010 and 2012 Actions can substantively affect San Diego’s related above-captioned Case 9 No. CPF-14-514004 (“2014 Action”), Case No. CPF-16-515282 (“2016 Action”), and Case No. 10 SFSC-18-516389 (“2018 Action”) against Respondent and Defendant Metropolitan Water 11 District of Southern California (“Metropolitan”). 12 For example, San Diego has indicated that the writ of mandate in the 2010 and 2012 13 Actions will already decide claims in the three later actions. This is incorrect. This and other 14 significant disputes may be the subject of an appeal that may well be filed shortly after entry of 15 judgment. Metropolitan requests that the Court first issue the judgment and writ, if any, in the 16 2010 and 2012 Actions and allow the statutory 30 days to pass before the Court considers San 17 Diego’s request to proceed with litigating the later cases. At that point, any appeal of one or both 18 parties will have been filed and it will be known whether there are matters pending on appeal that 19 will substantively affect adjudication of the subsequent related cases. 20 San Diego’s motions to lift the stay and file amended Petitions/Complaints in the 2014 21 and 2016 Actions should thus be denied or continued at this time. Metropolitan respectfully 22 requests only that the Court hold a case management conference to address the stays and San 23 Diego’s request to proceed with litigating the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions, including its new 24 claims in each of those cases, after the 30-day appeal period in the 2010 and 2012 Actions has 25 passed. 26 II. BACKGROUND 27 Metropolitan, a local government agency, is a voluntary cooperative of 26 member 28 agencies in Southern California, including San Diego. Metropolitan is governed by a Board of M ANATT , P HELPS & -1- P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 Directors (“Board”) comprised solely of representatives appointed by its member agencies. San 2 Diego is one of those member agencies, as are the nine member agencies that have joined the 3 cases as interested parties in support of Metropolitan. 1 4 Metropolitan was created in 1928 by the voters of several Southern California cities that 5 sought to obtain a supplemental supply of water for domestic and municipal uses and purposes, 6 which they could not each obtain individually. See Wat. Code appen., §§109-25, 109-30. 7 Subsequently, the voters within other cities and the areas of local water districts also voted to join 8 Metropolitan for the purpose of securing water resources and services not available to them 9 without regional cooperation, including due to the small size of their service area, geographical 10 factors limiting their access to local or imported water, or a local preference not to invest 11 independently in water resources or infrastructure. Today, Metropolitan serves as a supplemental 12 supplier to a region with nearly 19 million people, providing wholesale water service to its 13 member agencies if and to the extent these agencies opt to purchase it. 14 A. The 2010 and 2012 Actions 15 San Diego filed the 2010 Action on June 11, 2010, challenging the rates Metropolitan 16 adopted in April 2010 for the years 2011 and 2012. San Diego argued that Metropolitan 17 unlawfully allocated to its transportation rates and wheeling rate (1) the transportation costs 18 Metropolitan incurred under its State Water Project (“SWP”) contract with the California 19 Department of Water Resources for participation in the SWP, and (2) the costs it incurred to fund 20 local water resource development and conservation (“demand management” programs) through 21 the Water Stewardship Rate (“WSR”). As detailed more fully in Metropolitan’s recently briefed 22 motion for entry of judgment, San Diego later amended the 2010 Petition/Complaint to add a 23 cause of action for breach of the Exchange Agreement between the parties that contains a price 24 term based only on the transportation rate components of Metropolitan’s full service rate, as well 25 1 In addition to Metropolitan, the following Metropolitan member agencies are Real Party in Interest Respondents as to the first three causes of action (the rate challenges) in each of the 26 Actions, in support of Metropolitan: City of Los Angeles, acting by and through its Department of Water and Power, City of Torrance, Eastern Municipal Water District, Foothill Municipal Water 27 District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, West Basin Municipal Water District and Western 28 Municipal Water District. M ANATT , P HELPS & 2 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 as other causes of action separate and distinct from the rate challenge. 2 In April 2012, Metropolitan, consistent with its biennial practice, adopted its rates for 3 2013 and 2014. San Diego then filed the 2012 Action, repeating in substantial part the claims in 4 the first four causes of action in the 2010 Action but challenging Metropolitan’s transportation 5 rates and wheeling rate for 2013-2014, and adding a “dry year peaking” rate challenge. The 2012 6 Petition/Complaint included four causes of action: (1) writ of mandate, (2) declaratory relief, (3) 7 determination of invalidity, and (4) breach of contract. The 2010 and 2012 Actions were heard 8 and tried before the Honorable Curtis E.A. Karnow. 9 B. The 2014 Action 10 In April 2014, while the 2010 and 2012 Actions were pending before Judge Karnow, 11 Metropolitan adopted its rates for 2015 and 2016. In June 2014, San Diego challenged those rates 12 by filing the 2014 Action, asserting the same allegations as in the earlier actions but based on the 13 2014 administrative record. The parties agreed that the 2014 Action was related to the 2010 and 14 2012 Actions and should be stayed, and the Court ordered the stay pursuant to the parties’ 15 stipulation. See Declaration of Barry W. Lee In Support of Metropolitan’s Opposition to Motion 16 to Motion to Lift Stay and File Amended Complaint (“Lee Decl.”), Ex. D. The basis of that 17 determination was that the 2014 Action involved the same parties and involved factual and legal 18 issues substantially similar to those implicated by the 2010 and 2012 Actions. See id. The parties 19 and the Court thus determined that it was “in the interests of judicial economy and conservation 20 of the scarce resources of the California courts and the Parties” to await final resolution of those 21 actions prior to moving forward with the 2014 Action, even though the 2010 and 2012 Actions 22 were not yet on appeal. Id. Similarly, this Court is about to enter judgment in the 2010 and 2012 23 Actions and the parties will have 30 days to appeal. Code Civ. Proc. § 870. Metropolitan requests 24 that the stays remain in place until after expiration of that period so that the parties and the Court 25 will know the extent to which issues on appeal overlap with issues to be tried in the remaining 26 cases. 27 On April 24, 2014, the Court issued a Statement of Decision in the 2010 and 2012 28 Actions, ruling that there was not substantial evidence in the 2010 and 2012 records to support M ANATT , P HELPS & 3 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 Metropolitan’s allocation of 100% of its SWP transportation costs and 100% of its demand 2 management costs to transportation, and ruling in Metropolitan’s favor on the “dry year peaking” 3 claims. (The Court previously dismissed certain other claims in the 2010 Action on demurrer and 4 motion for summary adjudication.) 5 The 2010 and 2012 Actions continued to a Phase II trial, addressing San Diego’s breach 6 of contract claims and “preferential rights” claim. A judgment was entered on November 18, 7 2015. The Court also issued a peremptory writ of mandate, granted in the judgment, which 8 commanded Metropolitan to enact transportation rates and wheeling rates “in the future” without 9 doing “the things th[e] Court held were illegal and/or unconstitutional in the Court’s April 24, 10 2014 Statement of Decision[.]” MWD appealed the judgment. The appeal—San Diego Cty. Water 11 Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. California, 12 Cal. App. 5th 1124 (2017), as modified on denial 12 of reh’g (July 18, 2017), review denied (Sept. 27, 2017) (“SDCWA”)—stayed enforcement of the 13 judgment and writ. See Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a). 14 Following entry of the judgment and issuance of the writ of mandate, San Diego 15 attempted to partially lift the stipulated stay in the 2014 Action to require Metropolitan to prepare 16 and lodge the administrative record for that case. See Lee Decl. ¶ 4. The Court denied San 17 Diego’s motion on December 21, 2015, concluding that: (1) “the result of the pending appeal may 18 moot at [sic] some issues, affecting the scope of the administrative record which Met would 19 assemble for the new case”; (2) the Court should not entertain whether the preparation of the 20 2014 administrative record affects the preparation of the future 2016 administrative record, as San 21 Diego claimed; and (3) the Court should not move forward with summary adjudication in the 22 2014 Action pending the appeal of the 2010 and 2012 Actions. Lee Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. E. 23 C. The 2016 Action 24 Continuing its biennial process, Metropolitan adopted its budget and rates and charges on 25 April 12, 2016 for 2017 and 2018, which San Diego challenged in the 2016 Action. The operative 26 2016 Petition/Complaint (and the Proposed Second Amended Petition/Complaint) alleges that the 27 2017 and 2018 rates are unlawful for legal and factual reasons similar to San Diego’s claims in 28 the 2010, 2012, and 2014 Actions. The operative 2016 Petition/Complaint also adds new and M ANATT , P HELPS & 4 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 different challenges to Metropolitan’s rates, and new challenges to Metropolitan’s charges, 2 budget, financial forecasting, and various practices, which were never asserted in prior cases. 3 On April 25, 2016, San Diego filed notices of related cases, stating that the 2016 Action 4 “involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims” and “arises from the same 5 or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same 6 or substantially identical questions of law or fact,” as the 2010, 2012, and 2014 Actions. Lee 7 Decl., Exs. A-C. 8 On November 10, 2016—just as they had done in the 2014 Action—the parties stipulated 9 to a stay of the 2016 Action, and the Court approved the stipulation. Lee Decl., Ex. F. On July 24, 10 2018, after the 2010 and 2012 Actions were remanded to this Court and the 2016 Action was 11 assigned to Department 305 for all purposes, the parties again stipulated to stay the 2016 Action, 12 agreeing that the stay remained in the interests of judicial economy. Id., Ex. 13 D. The Court of Appeal Decision and Remand Proceedings in the 2010 and 2012 Actions 14 15 Metropolitan appealed the judgment and attorney fees award in the 2010 and 2012 16 Actions. San Diego cross-appealed the Court’s fees award and the order granting summary 17 adjudication in Metropolitan’s favor on San Diego’s claim challenging Metropolitan’s Rate 18 Structure Integrity (“RSI”) Clause. On June 21, 2017, the Court of Appeal issued its decision, 19 reversing the judgment and vacating the writ. SDCWA, 12 Cal. App. 5th at 1166. 20 Relevant here, the Court of Appeal held that there was not substantial evidence in the 21 record before it to support inclusion of the WSR in the transportation rates and wheeling rate in 22 2011-2014, so the inclusion violated the common law and inclusion in the wheeling rate for those 23 years also violated California Water Code Section 1811(c). Id. at 1150-54. The Court of Appeal 24 also held that based on the record before it, Metropolitan’s inclusion of the WSR in the Exchange 25 Agreement price term for 2011-2014 constituted a breach of that Agreement and “[San Diego] is 26 entitled to recover damages limited to the overcharges attributable to the unlawful inclusion of the 27 water stewardship rate.” SDCWA, 12 Cal. App. 5th at 1154. The Court of Appeal further clarified 28 that “[t]he legality of the water stewardship fee as a component of Metropolitan’s full‐service M ANATT , P HELPS & 5 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 water rate is not at issue here and we express no opinion on the matter,” meaning the legality of 2 the WSR as part of Metropolitan’s full-service water sales was not at issue in the case. Id. at 3 1152, n.16. The Court of Appeal remanded the action “to the trial court for recalculation of 4 damages [based solely on overcharges from inclusion of the WSR], entry of declaratory relief on 5 the Rate Structure Integrity clause, redetermination of the prevailing party, and other proceedings 6 consistent with the views expressed in [its] opinion.” Id. at 1166. 7 Following remand of the 2010 and 2012 Actions, each party submitted opening and 8 response briefs to determine the scope of the proceedings on remand. This Court entered its Order 9 Re Scope of Remand Proceedings Following Remand in July 2018 (“Order Re Scope”), ordering, 10 among other things, that on San Diego’s fifth cause of action, San Diego is entitled to further 11 proceedings to litigate the issue of San Diego’s entitlement to RSI Clause restitution. (Order Re 12 Scope, 7:6-8; 8:20-22.) On February 28, 2020, San Diego notified the Court that San Diego 13 would not further pursue restitution on its fifth cause of action in the 2010 Action, and that the 14 2010 and 2012 Actions were ripe for judgment. 15 This Court will soon enter judgment in the consolidated 2010 and 2012 Actions. On June 16 17, 2020, the parties filed cross motions for entry of judgment, which were heard on July 30, 17 2020. On July 31, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the motions in part and denying them 18 in part and instructing the parties to submit proposed judgments and writs, which the parties did 19 on August 6, 2020. Once judgment is entered, the parties will have 30 days to appeal. 20 III. THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED OR CONTINUED 21 This Court has the inherent authority to not only stay cases, but also to keep a stay in place 22 “in the interests of judicial economy and conservation of the scarce resources of the California 23 courts and the Parties.” See Lee Decl., Ex. D at 1:19-21; see also Cottle v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 24 App. 4th 1367, 1378 (1992) (“Every court has the inherent power to regulate the proceedings of 25 matters before it and to effect an orderly disposition of the issues presented.”). It is particularly 26 appropriate for the Court to exercise its inherent power to await appellate results in another action 27 that might resolve certain issues in the stayed action. See Lindsay Strathmore Irr. Dist. v. 28 Superior Court, 121 Cal. App. 606, 611-15 (1932) (court exercised power to coordinate trial court M ANATT , P HELPS & 6 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 proceedings with outcomes of a pending appeal in a different case). Doing so would be consistent 2 with Code of Civil Procedure Section 916. Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair 3 Franchising, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1173 (2000). Here, either or both parties may appeal certain 4 aspects of the judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions. Metropolitan requests only that the Court 5 delay deciding San Diego’s Motions until after the time to appeal has elapsed so that the parties 6 and the Court can properly evaluate the potential effect of any appealed issues on the remaining 7 cases in order to permit the efficient and effective management of the remaining cases. 8 A. The stays should remain in place until after the time period to appeal the judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions has elapsed. 9 10 San Diego argues that the stays should be lifted in the 2014 and 2016 because there is no 11 longer a risk of inconsistent pleadings or judgments because every issue in the 2010 and 2012 12 Actions has been decided. But San Diego cannot know that until the period to appeal the 13 judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions has expired. The 2014 and 2016 Actions should remain 14 stayed at least until after judgment is entered in the 2010 and 2012 Actions and the 30-day period 15 to appeal has elapsed. At that point, any appeal by one or both parties will have been filed and it 16 will be known whether there are matters pending on appeal that will substantively affect 17 questions of law in the 2014 and 2016 Actions. 18 B. The 2014 and 2016 Actions have legal questions in common with the 2010 and 2012 Actions that could be the subject of an appeal and legal questions that 19 San Diego improperly seeks to encompass in its currently pending proposed writ of mandate. 20 21 Throughout the history of these cases—including when agreeing to stay the 2014 and 22 2016 Actions—the parties have agreed that these cases are all closely related, that proceedings in 23 the 2010 and 2012 Actions should conclude before the other cases are litigated, and that all the 24 cases involve significant common legal questions that should impact the Court’s management of 25 each case. See, e.g., Lee Decl., Ex. F at 2:7-12 (“San Diego, MWD and the Member Agencies all 26 agree that it is in the interests of judicial economy and the parties to stay this action . . . pending 27 final resolution of the appeal” in the 2010 and 2012 Actions). 2 Nothing has changed; these cases 28 2 For instance, on April 25, 2016, San Diego filed Notices of Related Case, giving notice that the M ANATT , P HELPS & 7 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 remain related. 2 San Diego also argues that none of the issues raised in either the 2014 Action or the 2016 3 Action warrant a further stay of those cases. But San Diego also acknowledges that the first issue 4 in both cases is “whether Metropolitan’s continued imposition3 of the Water Stewardship Rate on 5 wheeling, and as part of the price charged to the Water Authority in the Exchange Agreement, 6 renders Metropolitan’s [2015 through 2018] wheeling and transportation rates illegal, and 7 relatedly breaches the Exchange Agreement.” 2014 Motion at 11:15-18; 2016 Motion at 12:2-5. 8 San Diego submitted a proposed judgment and writ in the 2010 and 2012 Actions that purports to 9 decide that issue in the 2014 and 2016 Actions before the pleadings in either of the later cases 10 have even been set. And regardless of the exact language of the judgment and writ, San Diego has 11 argued (and undoubtedly will continue to argue) that the fate of the WSR was decided in the 2010 12 and 2012 Action for all subsequent years even though the scope of the trial court’s and Court of 13 Appeal’s decisions was expressly limited to the transportation rates and wheeling rate set in 2010 14 and 2012 and based on the records for those years. See Lee Decl. Ex. I (July 30, 2020 hearing 15 transcript) at 23:14-24. The 2010 and 2012 Actions thus continue to overlap with the remaining 16 cases. 17 To be precise, San Diego has argued for a writ in the 2010 and 2012 Actions commanding 18 Metropolitan to “exclude the costs of conservation programs and other demand management 19 programs, imposed in these cases as the Water Stewardship Rate, from Metropolitan’s wheeling 20 rate published in Section 4405 of Metropolitan’s Administrative Code and from the transportation 21 rates charged under the Exchange Agreement.” (SD Proposed Jgmt. After July 30, 2020 Hearing 22 at 1:10-14.) San Diego’s proposed judgment and writ thus purport to reach rates that Metropolitan 23 set in 2014, 2016, and 2018—none of which were at issue in the 2010 or 2012 Actions, and all of 24 which involve different records than in the 2010 and 2012 Actions. 25 2016 Action: (1) “involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims,” and (2) 26 “arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact,” as the 2010 Action, 27 2012 Action, and 2014 Action. 3 As the Court is aware, whether Metropolitan’s rates are imposed, and thus whether Proposition 28 26 can apply, is a disputed issue. M ANATT , P HELPS & 8 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 The 2014 Action expressly places certain of Metropolitan’s 2015-2016 rates at issue for 2 the first time. See Proposed 2014 FAC ¶¶ 34-36 (alleging that Metropolitan’s wheeling and 3 transportation rates for calendar years 2015 and 2016 are unlawful because they include the 4 WSR); 61-72 (San Diego’s first cause of action seeking a writ of mandate regarding 5 “misallocation of costs in 2015 and 2016 transportation and wheeling rates and Full Service 6 Exchange Cost”); 73-79 (San Diego’s second cause of action seeking declaratory relief regarding 7 “misallocation of costs in 2015 and 2016 transportation and wheeling rates and Full Service 8 Exchange Cost”); 80-85 (San Diego’s third cause of action seeking a determination of invalidity 9 of certain rates adopted in 2014—i.e., Metropolitan’s rates for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years); 10 43-44 and 86-91 (San Diego’s fourth cause of action alleging breach of contract based in part on 11 Metropolitan’s inclusion of the WSR in its 2015-2016 transportation rates and wheeling rate). 12 Similarly, the 2016 Action places certain of Metropolitan’s rates for the 2017 and 2018 13 calendar years at issue for the first time. See Proposed 2016 SAC ¶¶ 36-37 (alleging that inclusion 14 of the WSR in Metropolitan’s 2017-2018 transportation rates and wheeling rate is unlawful); 53- 15 64 (San Diego’s first cause of action seeking a writ regarding “misallocation of costs in 2017 and 16 2018 transportation rates and wheeling rate”); 65-71 (second cause of action seeking declaratory 17 relief regarding “misallocation of costs in 2017 and 2018 transportation rates and wheeling rate”); 18 42-45 and 72-77 (third cause of action seeking determination of invalidity of certain rates 19 Metropolitan adopted in 2016); 78-83 (fourth cause of action for breach of contract based in part 20 on the WSR). 21 In contrast, in the 2010 and 2012 Actions, the Court of Appeal determined that the record 22 for 2011-2014 did not support Metropolitan’s inclusion of the WSR in its transportation rates and 23 wheeling rate for those years. Metropolitan’s rates for other years were not at issue, and the 24 subsequent years’ administrative records have not been compiled or submitted. Nevertheless, San 25 Diego has taken the position that judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions is dispositive of its 26 WSR claims in the remaining cases. The Court of Appeal may need to resolve the tension 27 between San Diego and Metropolitan’s positions. 28 It would be inefficient to proceed with trial in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions without M ANATT , P HELPS & 9 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 resolving this and potentially other issues. If the stays are lifted and Metropolitan is precluded 2 from demonstrating that substantial evidence in the administrative records for the 2014 and 2016 3 Actions supports inclusion of the WSR in its transportation rates and wheeling rate, a retrial of 4 both cases could be required after appeal of the judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions. It would 5 be inefficient to lift the stays now—which will trigger a request for preparation of the 6 administrative records in each remaining case and likely discovery requests from San Diego— 7 until the scope of any forthcoming appeal is known by the parties and the Court. 8 C. The stays should also remain in place until the 2018 Action is assigned to this Court and San Diego files a motion to lift stay in that case. 9 10 San Diego also intends to file a motion for leave to file an amended Petition/Complaint in 11 the 2018 Action once that case is designated complex and assigned to this Court. Lee Decl., Ex. H 12 at 5:16-19. Judicial economy favors deciding that motion at the same time as the similar pending 13 motions in the other cases. It also favors not lifting the stay in the 2014 Action or 2016 Action or 14 starting the clock on Metropolitan’s time to respond to the amended pleadings in those cases until 15 the 2018 Action is assigned to this Court. Metropolitan should be permitted to address common 16 issues and deficiencies in the three pleadings at the same time instead of on a piecemeal basis. 17 D. The remaining cases should be consolidated before the stays are lifted. 18 The parties agree that after entry of judgment in the 2010 and 2012 Actions, the remaining 19 cases (2014, 2016, and 2018) should be consolidated before this Court with the 2014 Action as 20 the lead case. The parties also agree that these cases involve common questions of law and fact, 21 and consolidation would “tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a). 22 Courts also consolidate cases for limited purposes such as determining common legal questions 23 for the sake of convenience, judicial economy and avoiding the risk of inconsistent rulings. See, 24 e.g., Sanchez v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1391, 1396 (1988) (“In a consolidation for trial, 25 the pleadings, verdicts, findings and judgments are kept separate; the actions are simply tried 26 together for the sake of convenience and judicial economy.”); accord Comm. for Responsible 27 Planning v. City of Indian Wells, 225 Cal. App. 3d 191, 196-97 (1990). Here, consolidation (and 28 continuing the stay) is warranted to ensure that common legal questions are uniformly resolved M ANATT , P HELPS & 10 P HILLIPS , LLP METROPOLITAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT ATTO RNEY S AT LAW LOS A NG EL ES CASE NO. CPF-14-514004 1 rather than repeatedly litigated in seriatim lawsuits with the risk of conflicting findings and 2 rulings. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 Metropolitan respectfully requests that the Court deny or continue the motions and keep 5 the stays in place until after judgment is entered in the 2010 Action and the 2012 Action, and the 6 30-day appeal period has elapsed. If neither party appeals and the judgment becomes final, it may 7 make sense to lift the stay in one or all of the remaining cases. If, on the other hand, one or both 8 parties appeal, issues on appeal could significantly impact the remaining cases. Metropolitan 9 respectfully requests that the Court hold a case management conference to address the stays and 10 San Diego’s request to proceed with litigating the 2014, 2016, and 2018 Actions, including its 11 new claims in each of those cases, after the 30-day appeal period in the 2010 and 2012 Actions 12 has passed. 13 Dated: August 12, 2020 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 14 15 By: /s/ Barry W. Lee 16