Motion for Case Management in TRANSFERRED TO SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO JCCP5117| Trellis.Law

On May 04, 2020 a Party Statement was filed involving a dispute between Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, Central Coast Water Authority, County Of Kings, Dudley Ridge Water District, Kern County Water Agency, Oak Flat Water District, Palmdale Water District, San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, State Water Contractors, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, and State Of California Department Of Fish And Wildlife, State Of California Department Of Water Resources, for 02 Unlimited - Writ of Mandate in the District Court of Fresno County.

Preview
JOSEPH P. BY RNE, GENERAL COUNSEL, Bar No. 190365 Exempt from filing fees
J Byme@bbklaw.com to Gov. Code§
CHRISTOPHER M. PISANO, Bar No. 192831 6103
Christopher. Pisano@bbklaw.com
CHARITY SCHILLER, Bar No. 234291 E-FILED
Charity.Schiller@bbklaw.com. 9/4/2020 12:14 PM
AMY HOYT, Bar No. 149789 Superior Court of California
-Hoyt@bbklaw.com. County of Fresno
Best Best & Kri LLP By: Louana Peterson, Deputy
3390 University Avenue, 5th Floor
P.O. Box 1028
Riverside, Califomia 92502
Telephone: (951) 686-1450
Facsimile: (951) 686-3083

Attomeys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
STATE WATER CONTRACTORS and.
SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER AGENCY
10
[Additional Counsel on Next Page]
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF FRESNO
13

14
STATE WATER CONTRACTORS, Case No. 20CECG01302
15 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, Filed under Califomia Environmental Quality
ANTELOPE VALLEY-EAST KERN Act (CEQA)
16 WATER AGENCY, CENTRAL COAST
WATER AUTHORITY, DUDLEY ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:
17 RIDGE WATER DISTRICT, COUNTY JUDGEJEFFREY Y. HAMILTON
OF KINGS, OAK FLAT WATER, DEPARTMENT 54
18 DISTRICT, PALMDALE WATER
DISTRICT, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
19 WATER AGENCY, SAN GABRIEL STATEMENT
VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER
20 DISTRICT, and TULARE LAKE BASIN Date: 1st CMC September 16, 2020
WATER STORAGE DISTRICT; Time: 1:30pm
21 Dept. Conference Room 305
Petitioners/Plaintiffs,
Location: B.F. Sisk Courthouse
22
Vv.
Petition electronically filed: Apuil 28, 2020
23
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
File-stamped date of Petition: May 4, 2020
First Amended Petition &
24. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND Complaint filed: Aug. 7, 2020
WILDLIFE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
25 DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES, and DOES 1 through 100,
26
Respondents/Defendants/
27 Real Partiesin Interest.

28
27881.00029\33205091.2

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
ROES 1 through 100,
Real Parties
in Interest.

at 10
wan 11
OBuieZ
nu2ge
weZzao0
OGUx 12
rw2oe2
Or Eos
30
gngea 13
bo
nS
ws
Be 14

19
20

24.

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -2-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

WILLIAM M. SLOAN, Bar No. 203583
WMsSloan@V enable.com
CHELSEA E. O'SULLIVAN, Bar No. 308369
ceosullivan@V enable.com
Venable LLP
101 Califomia Street, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-4490
Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
STATE WATER CONTRACTORS

AMELIA T. MINABERRIGARAI, GENERAL COUNSEL, Bar No. 192359
ameliam@kcwa.com
KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY
at 10 3200 Rio Mirada Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93308
wan
OBuieZ 11 Telephone: (661) 634-1409
nu2ge
weZzao0
OGUx 12 PAUL S. WEILAND, Bar No. 237058
rw2oe2 nossaman.com
Or tog
saaeoa
13 BENJAMIN Z. RUBIN, Bar No. 249630
bo
nS
brubin@nossaman.com
ws
Be 14 Nossaman LLP
18101 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1800
15 Irvine, CA 92612-0177
Telephone: (949) 833-7800
16
Attomeys for Plaintiff/Petitioner
17 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

18
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
19 A Professional Corporation
JAMES L. MARKMAN, Bar No. 43536
20 J aw.com
B, TILDEN KIM, Bar No. 143937
21 tki aw.com,
350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
22 Los A: les, Califomia 90071-3101
Telephone: (213) 626-8484.
23 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078

24. Attomeys for PetitionePlaintiff
ANTELOPE VALLEY - EAST KERN WATER AGENCY
25

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -3-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
STEPHANIE OSLER HASTINGS, Bar No. 186716
Email: bhfs.com
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, Califomia 93101-2711
Telephone: (805) 963-7000
Facsimile: (805) 965-4333

Attomeys for Petitioner Plaintiff
CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY

Teese HUGHES, Bar No. 169375
kleinlaw.com
JOHN. KOMAR, Bar No. 169662
jkomar@kleinlaw.com
KLEIN DeNATALE GOLDNER
4550 Califomia Avenue, Second Floor
at 10 Bakersfield, Califomia 93309
wan
Telephone: (661) 485-2100
OBuieZ 11
nu2ge
weZzao0 Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
OGUx 12 DUDLEY RIDGE WATER DISTRICT
rw2oe2
Or tog
saaeoa
13
bo
nS
LEE BURDICK, COUNTY COUNSEL, Bar No. 157423
ws
Be 14 Lee.Burdick@co.ki
COUNTY OF KING OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
15 1400 W. Blvd., Law Building No. 4
Hanford, 13230
16 Telephone: (559) 852-2445
17 Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
COUNTY OF KINGS
18

19 STEVEN M. TORIGIANIL, Bar No. 166773
storigiani@yor dri
20 ALANF. DOUD, Bar No. AG969
adoud@youngwooldridge.com
21 BREIT A. STROUD, Bar No. 301777
bstroud@yot dridge.com.
22 THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE, LLP
1800 30th Street, 4th Floor
23 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Te me: (661) 327-9661
24. Facsimile: (661) 327-0720

25 Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
OAK FLAT WATER DISTRICT
26

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -4-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
ERIC L. DUNN, Bar No. 176851
awattomeys.com.
ALONDRA ESPINOSA, Bar No. 315095
aespinosa@awattol com,
ALESHIRE & WY NDER, LLP
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 520
Riverside, CA 92501
Email: awatto! COM
Telephone: (951) 241-7338
Facsimile: (951) 300-0985

Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
PALMDALE WATER DISTRICT

JAMES D. CIAMPA, Bar No. 162280
jciampa@l: lof.com
LAGERLOF, LLP
at 10 301 No. Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
Pasadena, CA 91101
wan
OBuieZ 11 Telephone: (626) 793-9400
nu2ge
weZzao0 Facsimile: (626) 793-5900
OGUx 12
rw2oe2 Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
Or tog
saaeoa
13 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
bo
nS
ws
Be 14
AUBREY A. MAURITSON, Bar No. 272055
15 amauritson@visalialaw.com
MATTHEW T. AMARO, Bar No. 277777
16 isalialaw.com
RUDDELL, STANTON, BIXLER, MAURITSON& EVANS, LLP
17 1102 N. Chinowth Street
Visalia, CA 93291
18 Telephone: (559) 733-5770
19 Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
20

24.

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -5-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Petitioners and Plaintiffs State Water Contractors, Kem County Water Agency, Antelope

Valley-East Kem Water Agency, Central Coast Water Authority, Dudley Ridge Water District,

County of Kings, Oak Flat Water District, Palmdale Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water

Agency, San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, and Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage

District (collectively, “Petitioners’) and Respondents, Defendants and Real Parties in Interest

State of Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) and State of Califomia

Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) (together, “Respondents” and collectively with

Petitioners, “Parties”) have met and conferred in combination with the petitioners and plaintiffs in

two other related cases, and Petitioners submit the following Case Management Conference
10 Statement in accordance with the Fresno County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 2.11.2 and the

11 Califomia Rules of Court, rules 3.724 and 3.727.

wussgs 12 Topics related to the First, Second and Third Causes of Action asserting violations of the
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 California Environmental Quality Act and the Califormia Endangered Species Act
bwio5
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 1 Status of service upon or appearance by respondents and real parties in interest
be
Bz
as 15 CDFW and DWR are named as Respondents, Defendants and Real Parties in Interest.

16 Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Respondents were unable to accept personal service.

17 Instead, at Respondents’ request, Petitioners served Respondents with the original Verified

18 Petition for Writ of Mandate under the Notice of Acknowledgement procedure established in

19 Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30. Counsel for DWR and counsel for CDFW signed the
20 respective Notices of Acknowledgment on June 8, 2020. Subsequently, Petitioners also served

21 DWR and CDFW with the First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint (“First

22 Amended Petition’). Respondents agree that service is complete, and at this time Petitioners do

24. 1 Petitioners and Plaintiffs in the related cases The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, et al., Case No. 20CECG01347 and San
25 Bemardino Valley Municipal Water District v. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, et al., Case
26 No. 20CECG01556 simultaneously met and conferred with the Parties above. Thus, the issues
and positions presented in this CMC Statement are substantially identical to those presented
in the
27 CMC Statements that are being concurrently filed in those other two actions. Petitioners
suggested the Parties file one or more joint statements, but Respondents declined.
28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -6-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
not anticipate naming any additional parties.

The Parties have also entered into a stipulation agreeing to electronic service.

2. Status of the administrative records

The three
writ causes of action in the First Amended Petition relate to DWR
and CDFW’s

analysis of and approval of the State Water Project long term operations Refined Altemative 2b

Project, and CDFW’s approval of an Incidental Take Permit goveming
the potential take
of listed

species. Specifically, Petitioners allege that DWR violated the Califomia Environmental Quality

Act (“CEQA”) when it approved the Refined Altemative 2b Project, and certified an

Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) without properly analyzing and mitigating environmental
10 impacts. Petitioners also assert that, acting as a CEQA “responsible agency,” CDFW then

11 violated CEQA by relying on that defective EIR and issuing an Incidental Take Permit under the

wussgs 12 Califomia Endangered Species Act (“CESA”) that, itself, involved even further impacts that were
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 not analyzed. Petitioners also assert that CDFW’s issuance of the ITP violated the statutory
bwio5
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 mandates of CESA. Because these three writ causes of action challenge separate approvals, by
be
Bz
as 15 separate agencies,
under separate laws, Petitioners anticipate that there will be at least three

16 administrative records necessary for the case.

17 Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (b)(2), Petitioners have

18 elected to prepare the CEQA administrative records, and the State Water Contractors in one of the

19 related cases has submitted requests under the Public Records Act to CDFW and DWR for the
20 records that comprise the administrative records. Respondents have informed State Water

21 Contractors that it will take until approximately March of 2021 to provide all of the

22 administrative record documents. Pursuant to this Court’s July 29, 2020 order, the current

23 deadline for the CEQA record's certification in this case is October 6, 2020, which is identical to

24. the deadline in the related The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al. case.

25 However, given Respondents’ current assertions that more time will be needed for record

26 document production, the Parties
may agree to extend this deadline further.

27 In addition to this action, seven other related cases have been filed in four different

28 superior courts, including three other cases in Fresno County Superior Court, two in San
27881.00029\33205091.2 -7-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Francisco County Superior Court, one in Alameda County Superior Court, and one in Sacramento

County Superior Court:
e The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, et al. v. Dept. of Fish &

Wildlife, et al. - Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 20CECG01347

e San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District v. Dept. of Water Resources, et

al. - Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 20CECG01556
e Tehanw-Colusa Canal Authority, et al. v. Dept. of Water Resources, et al. -

Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 20CECG01303

e Central
Delta Water Agency, et al.
v. Dept. of Fish
& Wildlife, et al. - Sacramento
10 County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2020-80003368-CU-WM-GDS

11 e North Coast Rivers Alliance, et al. v. Dept. of Water Resources, et al. - San

wussgs 12 Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CPF20517078
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 e Sierra Club, et al. v. Dept. of Water Resources, et al. - San Francisco County
bwio5
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 Superior Court, Case No. CPF20517120
be
Bz
as 15 e San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. v. DWR, et al- Alameda County Superior Court,

16 Case No. RG20063682

17 The petitioners in those other actions have similarly elected to prepare the administrative

18 records. Two Petitions for Coordination are currently pending before the Judicial Council to

19 coordinate the eight cases and have been assigned the following names and proceeding numbers:
20 (1) Tehama-Colusa Water Project Cases, JCCP 5116, and (2) CDWR Water Operations Cases,

21 JCCP 5117. No opposition to the coordination petitions have been filed, but the question of the

22 coordination venue is outstanding, with all four petitioner groups that filed in Fresno seeking

23 venue there, the respondent state agencies seeking venue in Sacramento, where one of the related

24. cases
was filed, and the petitioners in San Francisco Baykpeper, et al. seeking coordination in

25 Alameda County Superior Court. At this time, no coordination motion judge has been assigned

26 and. no stay orders have been issued,

27 Petitioners anticipate that the eight actions will be coordinated, and that the collective

28 parties to those actions will meet and confer regarding the preparation of the records in order to
27881.00029\33205091.2 -8-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
avoid duplication of effort and to facilitate efficiency.

3. Status of settlement conference, and whether early settlement conference before assigned

judge would be beneficial

Pursuant
to CEQA’s statutory mandate under Public Resources Code section 21167.8, the

Parties participated in a settlement conference on July 23, 2020 in a good faith attempt to resolve

the litigation. The Parties were unable to achieve settlement at that time, but are continuing
to

discuss potential settlement options.

Given the statewide nature of the claims asserted in the lawsuit, the number of public

agencies involved in this action, and the number of related actions that challenge DWR and.
10 CDFW’s approvals, the Parties do not believe that an early settlement conference before the

11 assigned judge would be beneficial.

wussgs 12 4. Anticipated motions, including briefing schedule and proposed hearing dates
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 As noted above, two Petitions for Coordination are currently pending before the Judicial
bwio5
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 Council. The Parties have also discussed the potential bifurcation of trial on the First, Second and.
be
Bz
as 15 Third Causes of Action, which are writ claims, from the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, which

16 are not writ claims. However, at this early stage of the action, the Parties
are still evaluating this

17 option.

18 The Parties do not currently anticipate filing any other early motions regarding the CESA

19 and CEQA claims, but Petitioners may consider bringing a motion for preliminary injunction if
20 circumstances warrant.

21 The Parties believe it is premature to set a briefing schedule on the merits of the CEQA and

22 CESA causes
of action. The Parties propose that they meet and confer regarding a briefing

23 schedule once the administrative records have been certified.

24. 5, Setting of hearing/trial on the merits

25 Petitioners timely filed, and served notice of, a written request for a hearing on the CEQA

26 claims pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.4, subdivisions (a)-(b). However, the

27 Parties believe it is premature
to set a hearing date on the merits of the CEQA and CESA causes

28 of action, given that the administrative records are not complete.
27881.00029\33205091.2 -9-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
6. Necessity of further status

If it pleases
the Court, the Parties suggest that a further status hearing be scheduled in

approximately 60 days.

Topics related
to all daims, induding the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action asserting

breach of contract and breach of the inplied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

1 Nature
of the claims

Plaintiffs Kem County Water Agency, Antelope Valley-East Kem Water Agency, Central

Coast Water Authority, Dudley Ridge Water District, County of Kings, Oak Flat Water District,

Palmdale Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, San Gabriel Valley Municipal
10 Water District, and Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District allege that DWR breached the long-

11 term weter supply contracts
each entered with DWR to participate
in the State Water Project, one

wussgs 12 of the largest
water supply projects in the United States. The Califomia State Water Project
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 (SWP) is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants and pumping
bwio5
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 Plants extending more than 700 miles—two-thirds the length of Califomia. Planned, constructed,
be
Bz
as 15 and operated by DWR, the SWP is the nation’s largest state-built, multi-purpose, user-financed.

16 water project. It supplies water to more than 27 million people in northem Califomia, the Bay

17 Area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast
and southem Califomia. SWP water also irrigates

18 about 750,000 acres of farmland, mainly in the San Joaquin Valley. Under their respective long-

19 tem contracts, the Plaintiffs (among a total of 29 public entities) fund all State Water Project
20 capital and operating costs associated with water storage and conveyance. Each Plaintiff is

21 obligated
to pay capital and operations costs whether or not there is an allocation of State Water

22 Project Water in any given year. The long-term contracts require DWR to make all reasonable

23 efforts to perfect and protect water rights necessary for the system and for the satisfaction of

24. water supply commitments, and further require that DWR do so in a manner that is not “arbitrary,

25 capricious or unreasonable.”

26 Here, DWR breached these contractual obligations and the implied covenant of good faith

27 and fair dealing by agreeing to project modifications and mitigation in excess of that required by

28 law. Specifically, DWR modified its proposed project to sacrifice State Water Project water
27881.00029\33205091.2 -10-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
supplies and increase mitigation costs, first in its application for an Incidental Take Penmit, then

again in the project it ultimately approved. Worse, it accepted an Incidental Take Permit issued

by Respondent Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife for the long-term operations of the

State Water Project that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with the Califomia Endangered

Species Act because it includes costly mitigation and other measures that, among other things, are

umnecessary, disproportionate and/or infeasible to address potential environmental and species

impacts associated with operation of the State Water Project, and will result in even lower State

Water Project supplies. By breaching, DWR has unnecessarily and unreasonably increased State

Water Project costs bome by Plaintiffs and other State Water Contractors while lowering its long-
10 term average supplies.

11 2. Related cases

wussgs 12 ‘There are seven cases related to this action previously listed.
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 3. Service issues
bwio5
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 As set forth above, service of the lawsuit is complete as to all parties.
be
Bz
as 15 4. Additional parties or amendment of pleadings

16 At this time, the Petitioners do not anticipate further amending their First Amended

17 Petition or naming additional parties.

18 5, Any issues that may affect the court’s jurisdiction

19 As set forth above, there are two Petitions for Coordination currently pending before the
20 Judicial Council. At this time, no coordination motion judge has been assigned and no stay order

21 has been issued.

22 6. ‘Whether an early settlement conference would be beneficial

23 Asset forth above, the Parties participated in a settlement meeting in an attempt
to resolve

24. the litigation, and will continue to discuss settlement. However, for the reasons set forth above,

25 Petitioners do not believe that an additional early settlement conference would be beneficial.

26 7. Date discovery
will be completed

27 Unknown at present. This cannot be known until the pending coordination petitions have

28 been resolved.
27881.00029\33205091.2 -11-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
8. Anticipated discovery issues

Plaintiffs will conduct discovery and will work to make sure that all discovery
is timely

conducted. Defendant DWR has requested a stay in conjunction with its petition to coordinate

the eight related cases. Plaintiffs
have opposed in part, asking that any stay not apply to

discovery or to filing of amended pleadings. In addition, Defendant DWR has indicated that it

will demur to the fourth and fifth causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

9. Bifurcation

The Parties have discussed
the potential bifurcation
of trial on the First, Second
and Third

10 Causes of Action, which are writ claims, from the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, which are

11 not writ claims. However, at this early stage of the action, the Parties are still evaluating this

wussgs 12 option.
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 10. Cross-ol faints
bwio5
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 None.
be
Bz
as 15 11. Statutory preference

16 This action involves multiple claims under CEQA, which are given statutory preference

17 pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.1.

18 12. ury tial

19 Plaintiffs are demanding a jury and have paid the required fee.
20 13. Date case will be ready
for trial

21 Unknown at present. This cannot be known until the pending coordination petitions have

22 been resolved.

23 14. Estimated| of trial

24. Unknown at present. This cannot be known until the pending coordination petitions have

25 been resolved.

26 15. Amount of inch itive

27 Unknown at present. Plaintiffs have not prayed for damages in their First Amended

28 Petition
and Complaint, but reserve the right to do so by way of further amendment with leave of
27881.00029\33205091.2 -12-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
the court.

16. Additional relief sought

Declaratory relief, injunctive relief and specific performance.

17. Availability of insurance coverage

None.

18. Any other issues to be addressed in a case management order

Respondents have indicated that they may be filing a demurrer on the contract causes of

action, although they did not identify the basis for the potential demurrer. The Parties have not

yet resolved whether any facts can be agreed to by stipulation.
10
Dated: September 3, 2020 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
11 JOSEPHP. BY RNE, G COUNSEL
wussgs
0828
gu
=9
oee Te
bwio5
Sere
12

13 By:
OSEPH P. BY
ll
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 CHRISTOP. PISANO
be
Bz
as CHARITY SC
15 AMY HOYT
Attomeys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
16 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS and.
SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER
17 AGENCY
18 Dated: NOSSAMAN LLP
PAUL S. WEILAND
19
20
By:
21 AMELIA T. MINABERRIGARAI
PAUL S WEILAND
22 BENJAMIN Z. RUBIN
Attomeys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
23 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY
24.

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -13-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
the court.

16. Additional relief sought

Declaratory relief, injunctive relief and specific performance.

17. Availability of insurance coverage

None.

18. Any other issues to be addressed in a case management order

Respondents have indicated that they may be filing a demurrer on the contract causes of

action, although they did not identify the basis for the potential demurrer. The Parties have not

yet resolved whether any facts can be agreed to by stipulation.
10
Dated: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
11 JOSEPH P. BYRNE, GENERAL COUNSEL
wussgs 12
ol 2oZ
wea-6
oee Te 13 By:
bwio5
Sere OSEPH P. BY RNE
EwGo
<0 Gag 14 CHRISTOPHER M. PISANO
be
Bz
as CHARITY SCHILLER
15 AMY HOYT
Attomeys for Petitioners/Plaintiffs
16 STATE WATER CONTRACTORS and.
SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER
17 AGENCY
18 Dated: September3, 2020 NOSSAMAN LLP
PAUL S. WEILAND
19
20
. Fol L We “ff
21 AMELIA T. MINABERRIGARAI
PAUL S WEILAND
22 BENJAMIN Z. RUBIN
Attomeys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
23 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY
24.

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -13-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Dated: THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG
WOOLDRIDGE, LLP

B
‘STEVEN M. TORIGIANI
ALAN F. DOUD
BRETT A. STROUD
Attomeys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
OAK FLAT WATER DISTRICT

Dated: September 3, 2020 ALESHIRE & WY NDER, LLP
py oOo eh
ERIC L. DUNN
ALONDRA ESPINOSA
10 Attomeys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
PALMDALE WATER DISTRICT
oe 1
az
ae Dated: LAGERLOF, LLP
wei
OR sod 12
AGIA
BEZSO
Bae
ESS 13
52sas
aad B
REO 14 "AMES D. CIAMPA
22 Baa
Hee Attomeys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
Be 15 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPAL
°3 WATER DISTRICT
16

17 Dated: RUDDELL, STANTON, BIXLER,
MAURITSON & EVANS, LLP
18 AUBREY A. MAURITSON, GENERAL
COUNSEL
19
20
B
21 “AUBREY A. MAURITSON
MATTHEW T. AMARO
22 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER
23 STORAGE DISTRICT
24

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -15-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Dated: Cepia 52020 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON

B. TILDEN KIM
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
ANTELOPE VALLEY — EAST KERN
WATER AGENCY

Dated: BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK

10 B
‘STEPHANIE OSLER HASTINGS
11 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
me 35 CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY
OR Bio 12
gp
BES
Dated: KLEIN DeNATALE GOLDNER
geey 13
OnHAO
eee
14
ga ga
B
Be
BZ 15 ‘JOSEPH HUGHES
JOHN V. KOMAR
16 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
DUDLEY RIDGE WATER DISTRICT
17
Dated: COUNTY OF KINGS, OFFICE OF THE
18 COUNTY COUNSEL
19

20 B
TEE BURDICK
21 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
COUNTY OF KINGS
22

25
26

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -14-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
27881.00029\33242426.1
Dated: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON

By:
JAMES L. MARKMAN
B. TILDEN KIM
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
ANTELOPE VALLEY - EAST KERN
WATER AGENCY

Dated: September3, 2020 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARB oT
SCHRECK

at
AL
10

ll
wr STEPHAI
plat
OSLER HASTINGS
Attormeys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY
Sg WS
DAS
yusodg
12
Zuse Dated: KLEIN DeNATALE GOLDNER
NSX5 13
O%. XO2
og
3h
JOHN V. KOMAR
16 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
DUDLEY RIDGE WATER DISTRICT
17
Dated. COUNTY OF KINGS, OFFICE OF THE
18 COUNTY COUNSEL
19
20
By:
LEE BURDICK
21
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
COUNTY OF KINGS
22

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -14-
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Dated: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON

By:
JAMES L. MARKMAN
B. TILDEN KIM
Attol for Petitioner/Plaintiff
ANTELOPE VALLEY - EAST KERN
WATER AGENCY

Dated: BROWNSTEIN HY ATT FARBER SCHRECK

10 By:
STEPHANIE OSLER HASTINGS
11 Attomeys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY
wussgs 12
0828
gu Dated: September3, 2020 KLEIN DeNATALE GOLDNER
=9
oee Te
bwio5 13
Sere
EwGo
<0 Gag 14
be
Bz
as 15
By:
HUGHES
V. KOMAR
16 for Petitioner/Plaintiff
DUDLEY RIDGE WATER DISTRICT
17
Dated: COUNTY OF KINGS, OFFICE OF THE
18 COUNTY COUNSEL
19
20 B
TEE BURDICK
21 Attomeys for PetitioneyPlaintiff
COUNTY OF KINGS
22

24.

28
27881.00029\33205091.2 -14-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Dated: RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON

By:
JAMES L. MARKMAN
B. TILDEN KIM
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
ANTELOPE VALLEY — EAST KERN
WATER AGENCY

Dated: BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK

10 B
“STEPHANIE OSLER HASTINGS
ao 11 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
ne
in CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY
95 tok
aSDag 12
BEZOS
ee Dated: KLEIN DeNATALE GOLDNER,
ZSx_R

ae JAMES D. CIAMPA
15
me Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
16 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
17
Dated: RUDDELL, STANTON, BIXLER,
18 MAURITSON & EVANS, LLP
19 AUBREY A. MAURITSON, GENERAL
COUNSEL
20

21 By:
22 AUBREY A. MAURITSON
MATTHEW T. AMARO
23 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER
24 STORAGE DISTRICT

Case Info

Judge

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 04, 2020

Case Filing Date

May 04, 2020

County

Parties

Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency Petitioner
Central Coast Water Authority Petitioner
County of Kings Petitioner
Dudley Ridge Water District Petitioner
Jenkins, William N. Attorneys for Defendants
Kern County Water Agency Petitioner
Minaberrigarai, Amelia T. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Oak Flat Water District Petitioner
Palmdale Water District Petitioner
Rowan, Carolyn N. Attorney
San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Petitioner
Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency Petitioner
Schiller, Charity Attorney
State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife Respondent
State of California Department of Water Resources Respondent
State Water Contractors Petitioner
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District Petitioner
Corey Moffat Attorney
Christopher Pisano Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Amy Hoyt Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William Sloan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Paul Weiland Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Benjamin Rubin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
B Kim Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Stephanie Osler Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joseph Hughes Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Komar Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lee Burdick Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steven Torigiani Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alan Doud Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brett Stroud Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Eric Dunn Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alondra Espinosa Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Ciampa Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew Amaro Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Eric Katz Attorneys for Defendants
James Moose Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Stiles Attorneys for Defendants
Stephanie Hou Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Statement: TRANSFERRED TO SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO JCCP5117

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties