SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE COUNTY OF SAN FR(\NCISCO. Respondents and Defendants.

Transcription

1 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP JOHN W. KEKER-# jkeker@kvn.com DANIEL PURCELL-# dpurcell@kvn.com DAN JACKSON-# 2091 djackson@kvn.com WARREN A. BRAUNIG - # 88 wbraunig@kvh.com 6 Battery Street 6 San Francisco, CA Telephone: Facsimile: MARK J. HATTAM- 667 mhattam@sdcwa.org 9 General Counsel_ SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Overland A venue San Diego, CA Telephone: (88) Facsimile: (88) -666 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 1 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY -~ l 0~.sERVICi: Nov :0PM "" "'c:i e~i;, ~ EXEMPT FROM FILING FEE~~v? [GOVERNMENT CODE 610] FI Su J ED L. penor Court of C /'f.. a r orn1a r ar; i-rancisco County 0 s,... NOV 1020 a,,~rt Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE COUNTY OF SAN FR(\NCISCO SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, v. Petitioner and Plaintiff, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY OF THE RA TES ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL, 20 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 20 AND JANUARY 1, 20; and DOES 1-10, Respondents and Defendants. STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION;~ROPOSEi)] Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Mary E. Wiss Dept. 0 Date Filed: April 1, 20 Trial Date: Not Yet Set STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION;if:B:OEQ~]

2 WHEREAS, on April 1, 20, Petitioner and Plaintiff San Diego County Water 2 Authority ("San Diego") filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, and Declaratory Relief ("Complaint") in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, challenging, among other things, the legality of rates and charges set by Respondent. and Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD") for calendar years 6 20and20;and 7 WHEREAS the Complaint explicitly provided that, after complying with certain statutory 8 and contractual requirements, San Diego intended to amend the Complaint to add claims for 9 breach of contract; and 10 WHEREAS, on June 0, 20, nine MWD member agencies-the City of Los Angeles, 11 the City of Torrance, Eastern Municipal Water District, Foothill Municipal Water District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Three Valleys 1 Municipal Water District, West Basin Municipal Water District, and Western Municipal Water District ("Member Agencies")-filed answers to the Complaint; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 20, MWD filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 9, which tolled the date for MWD to respond to the Complaint; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 20, Hon. Mary Strobel of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles granted a motion to transfer venue and transferred this case to the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco; and 20 WHEREAS San Diego now wishes to amend its Complaint; and WHEREAS San Diego can amend as of right to add additional claims against MWD, which has not yet responded to the Complaint, but must obtain a stipulation or leave of Court to 2 amend its Complaint as to the Member Agencies; and WHEREAS on October 1, 20 San Diego filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended 2 Complaint ("Motion for Leave") that is set for hearing on December 6, 20; and WHEREAS on November, 20 MWD filed a Motion to Stay Action ("Motion to Stay") that is also set for hearing on December 6, 20; and WHEREAS MWD's response to the original Complaint is due to be filed and served on 1 STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ST A Y OF ACTION; ['WCOF0SlD]

3 / November, 20; and 2 WHEREAS MWD and the Member Agencies, having been provided a copy of San Diego's First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Determination of Invalidity, Damages and Declaratory Relief ("First Amended Complaint"), and having received the Motion for Leave, have no objection to the filing of the First Amended Complaint, while 6 reserving all rights to challenge it on any grounds or otherwise respond to it, and 7 WHEREAS, San Diego, MWD and the Member Agencies all agree that it is in the 8 interests of judicial economy and the parties to stay this action immediately upon the filing of the 9 First Amended Complaint pending final resolution of the appeal in San Diego County Water 10 Authority v. Metropolitan Water District, First District, Court of Appeal Case Nos. A690l & ("20100 Appeals"), which addresses San Diego's challenge to the legality of rates set by MWD for calendar years 2011through20. 1 NOW, THEREFORE San Diego, MWD and the Member Agencies STIPULATE and REQUEST as follows: ~~: 1. San Diego may file its First Amended Complaint, and MWD and the Member Agencies do not object to the filing of such First Amended Complaint, while reserving all rights to challenge it on any grounds or otherwise to respond to it; ~it ~ Cou11~~enter an Order that the First Amended Complaint, attached hereto, +s E:ie~0d filed ~the date of the Order;. Given the filing of the First Amended Complaint, MWD is not required to respond to the original Complaint; and. This action shall be stayed immediately upon the filing of the First Amended 2 Complaint pending final resolution of the Appeals. Ill 2 Ill Ill Ill Ill 2 STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ST A Y OF ACTION; ~ItOF OSED]

4 ,, Nolf. LO, 2,olb 7 Dated.: / tj /th II 1 rj.& / ({) KEKER & VAN NEST LLP ~A-~!~ WARREN A. BRAUNIG Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Attorney for Respondent and Defendant METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1 MICHAEL N. FEUER CITY ATTORNEY MEYERS, NA VE, RIBACK, SIL VER & WILSON 20. MICHAEL N. FEUER AMRIT S. KULKARNI GREGORY J. NEWMARK THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 2 CITY OF TORRANCE 2 PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN Attorneys for CITY OF TORRANCE STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION; ~POSE't:>]

5

6 ,l KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 2 6 WARREN A. BRAUNfG Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 7 MANATr, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 8 9 JO 11 BARRY W. LEE Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1 ivhchaeln. FEUER CITY ATfORNEY MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER& WILSON 20 MICHAEL N. FEUER AMRIT S. KULKARNI GREGORY J. NEWMARK THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ACTING BY1AND THROUGH ITS DEPARTtvlENT or w ATER AND POWER 2..,j CITY OF TORRANCE H20.0I y~..._r!. J)_ -e.'~ PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN Attorneys for CITY OF TORRANCE STIPULATION RE: FILING QF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION; ~fl0~si

7 ,! / P. ILL Attorneys for Real Parties ii1 Interest EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, LASVIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, and WESTERN MUNICIPAL.WATER. DISTRICT ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP 1 STEVE O~STOT CHRISTINE M. CARSON MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COu;NTY BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY STEVEN M. KENNEDY Attorneys for RealParty in Interest THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT l 0.01 STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION; ~POSlD]

8 ,; 2,. CITY OF TORRANCE 6 7 PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN Attorneys for CITY OF TORRANCE 8 9 LEMIEUX & O'NEILL STEVEN P. O'NEILL 1!/ft?/C:&/~ Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, and WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, 20' 2 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY l STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT; [frol'osoo]

9 ' 2 LEMIEUX & O'NEILL STEVEN P. 0 'NEILL Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOOTHILL MUNICIPAL WATERDISTRICT, LAS VIRGENES MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, and WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ll{fo [ l~ ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP STEVE ONST9T CHRISTINE M. CARSON MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENONEDY ~(_, -d~ r 1 STEVEN M. KENNEDY THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION;tPR@F &fid]

10 ' fltltop0ei>] Based on the stipulation of the parties, and good CJUSe appearing, the Court S that rn y -h '/ e, ~-/' /'tp ft:j.tf'd 1. San Diego County Water Authorit~irst Amended Complaint, cattaehed te this-. ~fi~/'./\ s-ti1ulat-ien, oi8» 1eemed files as oftke da-te sf-entry of this Order, with MWD and the Member Agencies reserving all rights to challenge on any grounds or otherwise to respond to the First Amended Comp~ rk J=/1{!_ /ljusf--6~ /?kct(. ~ ~/' a~ ~WD. is not required to respond to th~original _Complaint. T#I' d./f' ~/' jj&s e7!g.. This action shall be and hereby is stayed immeg:iately upon the filing of the First 9 Amended Complaint_pending final resolution of the 2~/20 Appealj. /lz.e_~~y;,~~. d1 'f7 t7<!yezt Yo 1'~6c/ e-du /e Ml! ~#l<!:. /Lfic:Jn r /~//VJ cj 1 //? ~, 10 IT IS so ED. -r,_ J fl?$/ )f/ru ~/O; 2,~ / l STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION; ~eivc: ~]

11 Superior Court of California County of San Francisco SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, Case Number: CPF--2 vs. Petitioner and Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CCP (6) & CRC 2.0(g)) METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE VALIDITY OF THE RA TES ADOPTED BY THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON APRIL, 20 TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 20 AND JANUARY 1, 20; and DOES i-10, Respond~nts and Defendants. I, Michael Yuen, Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action. On November 10, 20, I electronically served the STIPULATION RE: FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT AND STAY OF ACTION; via File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on-the File & ServeXpress website. November 10, 20