The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al, No. 3:2017cv06011 - Document 274 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 272 STIPULATED REQUEST RE CONOCOPHILLIPS'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2018)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tracie J. Renfroe (pro hac vice) Carol M. Wood (pro hac vice) KING & SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-3200 Facsimile: (713) 751-3290 Email: cwood@kslaw.com Justin A. Torres (pro hac vice) KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 Email: jtorres@kslaw.com Megan R. Nishikawa (SBN 271670) Nicholas Miller-Stratton (SBN 319240) KING & SPALDING LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 318-1267 Facsimile: (415) 318-1300 Email: mnishikawa@kslaw.com George Morris (SBN 249930) KING & SPALDING LLP 601 South California Avenue Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 422-6700 Facsimile: (650) 422-6800 Email: gmorris@kslaw.com Counsel for Defendant ConocoPhillips 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 14 15 Doc. 274 CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney, Plaintiffs, 16 17 BP P.L.C., et al., Defendants. 19 Case No. 3:17-cv-06011-WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONOCOPHILLIPS’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY v. 18 First Filed Case: 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Related Case: 3:17-cv-06012-WHA 20 21 22 23 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J. HERRERA, 24 Case No. 3:17-cv-06012-WHA Plaintiffs, 25 v. 26 BP P.L.C., et al., 27 Defendants. 28 1 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012 Dockets.Justia.com 1 WHEREAS, on April 19, 2018, all Defendants in the above-styled cases filed a motion to 2 dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), while some Defendants—including 3 ConocoPhillips—filed a separate motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 12(b)(2); 5 WHEREAS, ConocoPhillips’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss asserted three distinct 6 grounds for dismissal: failure to adequately plead that ConocoPhillips’s subsidiaries were its 7 agents, such that their California contacts could be attributed to ConocoPhillips (“Corporate 8 Separateness Argument”); failure to adequately plead that alleged in-forum activities were a 9 “but-for” cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injury (“But-For Argument”); and that the exercise of 10 personal jurisdiction over ConocoPhillips was unreasonable under the circumstances 11 (“Unreasonableness Argument”); 12 WHEREAS, ConocoPhillips also submitted a sworn declaration by Christopher J. 13 Dodson (“Dodson Declaration”) to support its Corporate Separateness Argument and 14 Unreasonableness Argument; 15 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs opposed the Rule 12(b)(2) motion by a brief filed May 3, 2018; 16 ConocoPhillips filed a reply on May 10, 2018; and the Court heard oral argument on 17 ConocoPhillips’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion, as well as Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, on May 18 24, 2018; 19 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the May 24 hearing, the Court stated that it would delay 20 a ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion until Defendants’ jurisdictional defenses were resolved and 21 that it would allow jurisdictional discovery by Plaintiffs and by personal jurisdiction Defendants, 22 see May 24 Hearing Tr. at 102:18-103:5; 23 WHEREAS, on May 25, 2018, the Court ordered, inter alia, that Plaintiffs be afforded 24 approximately 60 days of jurisdictional discovery and set an August 9, 2018 deadline for 25 Plaintiffs to file supplemental opposition briefing and an August 16, 2018 deadline for 26 ConocoPhillips to reply; 27 28 WHEREAS, it is in the interests of all parties to speed a resolution of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion; 2 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012 1 WHEREAS, while ConocoPhillips does not believe it has sufficient contacts with 2 California for general or specific personal jurisdiction, due to ConocoPhillips’ interest in the 3 Court reaching the merits arguments in Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion and to avoid the burden 4 and expense of jurisdictional discovery in this case, ConocoPhillips is willing to withdraw its 5 Corporate Separateness Argument and Unreasonableness Argument for the limited purpose of 6 this particular case; 7 WHEREAS, while Plaintiffs believe this Court has minimum contacts with California 8 sufficient to support specific jurisdiction over ConocoPhillips and contested ConocoPhillips’s 9 motion to dismiss for that reason, they likewise are interested in the Court reaching the merits 10 arguments in Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and therefore support the final resolution of the 11 Corporate Separateness Argument and Unreasonableness Argument by stipulation and without 12 the need for further Court involvement. 13 14 15 NOW THEREFORE, the parties HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, subject to the approval and order of the Court, as follows: 1. ConocoPhillips withdraws its motion for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), to the extent that motion asserts a Corporate Separateness Argument 17 and an Unreasonableness Argument. Specifically, ConocoPhillips withdraws Argument Sections 18 II.A and II.C of its opening brief and Argument Sections I.A and I.C of its reply, as well as the 19 Dodson Declaration, and any other sections or factual averments in its briefing that rely upon the 20 Dodson Declaration or upon the Corporate Separateness Argument or the Unreasonableness 21 Argument. However, ConocoPhillips specifically reserves and does not withdraw its But-For 22 Argument. 23 2. Plaintiffs will forgo any jurisdictional discovery against ConocoPhillips in 24 relation to or pursuant to the Court’s May 25, 2018 order and May 24 hearing; likewise 25 ConocoPhillips will forgo any jurisdictional discovery against Plaintiffs in relation to or pursuant 26 to the Court’s May 24 hearing. 27 28 3. In light of this stipulation, there is no need for further jurisdictional discovery or briefing as relates to ConocoPhillips. 3 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012 1 4. This stipulation does not operate as a waiver of personal jurisdiction in any other 2 litigation that has been or will be brought by any other plaintiff against ConocoPhillips, in any 3 forum; nor does it constitute a concession that ConocoPhillips Company or any indirect 4 subsidiary of ConocoPhillips is or has been the agent of ConocoPhillips for any purpose. 5 5. This agreement does not affect the rights of either party to assert any other 6 argument, claim, or defense in these cases, to the extent permitted by state or federal law, the 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Evidence. 8 6. This agreement does not affect the rights of either party to seek appeal from, fees 9 or costs for, or any other right or remedy relating to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion currently pending 10 in these cases in this Court. 11 12 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012 1 Dated: June 5, 2018 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ George Morris Tracie J. Renfroe (pro hac vice) Carol M. Wood (pro hac vice) KING &SPALDING LLP 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-3200 Facsimile: (713) 751-3290 Email: cwood@kslaw.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 Justin A. Torres (pro hac vice) KING &SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 626-2959 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 Email: jtorres@kslaw.com 8 9 10 11 Megan R. Nishikawa (SBN 271670) Nicholas Miller-Stratton (SBN 319240) KING & SPALDING LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 318-1267 Facsimile: (415) 318-1300 Email: mnishikawa@kslaw.com 12 13 14 15 16 George Morris (SBN 249930) KING & SPALDING LLP 601 South California Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 422-6700 Facsimile: (650) 422-6800 Email: gmorris@kslaw.com 17 18 19 20 Counsel for Defendant ConocoPhillips 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012 ** /s/ Matthew D. Goldberg DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186 Chief Deputy City Attorney YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594 Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation ROBB W. KAPLA, State Bar #238896 Deputy City Attorney MATTHEW D. GOLDBERG, State Bar #240776 Deputy City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4602 Tel.: (415) 554-4748 Fax.: (415) 554-4715 Email: matthew.goldberg@sfcityatty.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J. HERRERA 10 11 12 ** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the electronic filer has obtained approval from this signatory. 13 14 ** /s/ Erin Bernstein BARBARA J. PARKER (State Bar #069722) City Attorney MARIA BEE (State Bar #167716) Special Counsel ERIN BERNSTEIN (State Bar #231539) Supervising Deputy City Attorney MALIA MCPHERSON (State Bar #313918) Attorney One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, California Tel.: (510) 238-3601 Fax: (510) 238-6500 Email: ebernstein@oaklandcityattorney.org 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CITY OF OAKLAND and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through Oakland City Attorney BARBARA J. PARKER 23 24 25 ** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the electronic filer has obtained approval from this signatory. 26 27 28 6 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012 /s/ Steve W. Berman STEVE W. BERMAN (pro hac vice) steve@hbsslaw.com HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel.: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 1 2 3 4 5 SHANA E. SCARLETT (State Bar #217895) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, California 94710 shanas@hbsslaw.com Tel.: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 6 7 8 9 13 MATTHEW F. PAWA (pro hac vice) mattp@hbsslaw.com BENJAMIN A. KRASS (pro hac vice) benk@hbsslaw.com HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1280 Centre Street, Suite 230 Newton Centre, Massachusetts 02459 Tel.: (617) 641-9550 Fax: (617) 641-9551 14 Of Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 Pursuant to the above Stipulation of the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED. The deadlines 3 for supplemental briefing on personal jurisdiction set forth in the Court’s May 25 Order 4 permitting jurisdictional discovery relative to ConocoPhillips are VACATED. 5 6 June 6, 2018. Date: ____________ _______________________________ WILLIAM H. ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Stipulation and Proposed Order Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011 3:17-cv-06012
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
