The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al, No. 3:2017cv06011 - Document 80 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO ENLARGE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND PAGE LIMITS AS MODIFIED by Judge William Alsup granting as modified (79) Stipulation in case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-06011-WHA, 3:17-cv-06012-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2017)

Download PDF

The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al Doc. 80 1 2 [Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through Oakland City Attorney BARBARA J. PARKER, v. Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest, BP P.L.C., a public limited company of England and Wales, CHEVRON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 17-cv-6011-WHA Case No. 17-cv-6012-WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REQUESTING CHANGE TO BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITS AS MODIFIED Defendants. 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA Dockets.Justia.com 1 WHEREAS, Plaintiff the People of the State of California, by and through the San Francisco 2 City Attorney, filed this action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San 3 Francisco, on September 19, 2017; 4 WHEREAS, on the same day, the People of the State of California, by and through the 5 Oakland City Attorney, filed a related action against the same Defendants in the Superior Court of the 6 State of California, County of Alameda (collectively with the San Francisco City Attorney, 7 “Plaintiffs”); 8 9 10 WHEREAS, Defendants removed these cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 20, 2017 (Dkt. 1); WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed with this Court a stipula- 11 tion providing that all Defendants shall have until November 27, 2017 to answer or otherwise 12 respond to the complaints, and noting that the Parties intended to meet and confer to reach a 13 negotiated schedule on the anticipated motion to remand and other motions (Dkt. 8); 14 WHEREAS, on October 27, 2017, the Parties filed with this Court a stipulation to designate 15 the San Francisco and Oakland actions as related under Local Rule 3-12(b) (the “Related Cases”) 16 (Dkt. 31); 17 WHEREAS, on October 31, 2017, this Court designated the cases as being related (Dkt. 32); 18 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion to Remand, which Defendants intend to 19 20 oppose; WHEREAS, the Parties agree it would be more efficient for the Parties and the Court for 21 Defendants to file Motions to Dismiss or other responses to the Complaints after Plaintiffs file a 22 Motion to Remand and the entry of an Order finally resolving any such motion; 23 WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred, and have agreed on a reasonable and orderly 24 briefing schedule for the Motion to Remand and Motions to Dismiss or other responses to the 25 Complaints that is in their respective interests and that will result in judicial efficiency; and 26 WHEREAS, the Parties have considered the page limitations set forth in the Local Rules and 27 this Court’s standing order and herein propose adjustments to the default page limitations that the 28 Parties believe will enable them to present adequate arguments on the Motion to Remand as across 1 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA 1 the Related Cases in light of the number of Parties, the multiple asserted bases for removal, and the 2 nature of the issues raised therein: 3 4 5 6 7 STIPULATION NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate, and respectfully request the Court pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-4(b) to enter an order, as follows: 1. Because the Related Cases contain essentially identical allegations and bases for re- 8 moval, the Parties agree that briefing for the Motion to Remand should be consolidated. Rather than 9 filing separate briefs in each case, the Parties shall file consolidated briefs that will apply to both of 10 11 the Related Cases. 2. On or before November 20, 2017, Plaintiffs shall file their Motion to Remand, along 12 with any supporting briefs and other materials. Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated motion in order to 13 avoid multiple briefs being filed. A Consolidated Motion to Remand in both Related Cases and on 14 behalf of all Plaintiffs shall be no more than 35 pages, excluding any exhibits and other supporting 15 materials. As recited above, the Parties believe this number of pages is appropriate given the number 16 17 of Parties, the multiple asserted bases for removal, and the nature of the issues raised therein. December 18, 2017 3. On or before January 17, 2018, Defendants shall file their response(s) to Plaintiffs’ 18 Motion to Remand. Defendants shall coordinate their efforts to file a consolidated response to the 19 extent possible in order to avoid multiple briefs being filed, reserving the right of any Defendant to 20 file a separate brief to the extent a separate response is necessary. A Consolidated Opposition to 21 22 Motion to Remand in all Related Cases and on arguments common to the Defendants shall be no 40 more than 65 pages. Defendants believe this number of pages is appropriate given the number of par- 23 ties, the multiple asserted bases for remand, and the complexity of the issues raised therein; plaintiffs 24 do not oppose this request and take no position on the number of pages Defendants request. January 8 4. On or before February 7, 2018, Plaintiffs shall file their reply, if any, to Defend- 25 26 27 ants’ response(s) in opposition to the Motion to Remand. Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated 30 reply that shall, consistent with Local Rule 7-3, be no longer than thirty-nine (39) pages, or sixty 28 (60) percent of the number of pages Defendants are allotted for their Consolidated Opposition. 2 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA 1 If Defendants file any separate opposition briefs, Plaintiffs’ opposition to those individual briefs 2 shall be no longer than sixty (60) percent of the pages actually used by each Defendant in the 3 separate brief Plaintiffs are opposing. 4 5. Defendants will not be required to file Answers or Motions to Dismiss or otherwise 5 respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaints until after the Court issues its ruling on the Motion to Remand and 6 Plaintiffs agree not to argue that such Motions to Dismiss or other responses are untimely so long as 7 they are filed as set forth in this briefing schedule. In the event the Court denies the Motion to 8 Remand, Defendants will not be required to file their responses to the Complaints until thirty (30) 9 days following entry of an Order denying the Motion to Remand, and Defendants reserve the right to 10 11 seek more time from the Court if appropriate. 6. This stipulation does not operate as an admission of any factual allegation or legal 12 conclusion and is submitted subject to and without waiver of any right, defense, affirmative defense, 13 claim, or objection, including lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 14 insufficient process, or insufficient service of process. 15 16 Dated: November 14, 2017. 17 18 By: /s/ Matthew D. Goldberg By: /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous 19 Dennis J. Herrera (SBN 139669) Ronald P. Flynn (SBN 184186) Yvonne R. Meré (SBN 173594) Robb W. Kapla (SBN 238896) Matthew D. Goldberg (SBN 240776) SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4602 Telephone: (415) 554-4748 Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 robb.kapla@sfgov.org Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.(SBN 132099) Andrea E. Neuman (SBN 149733) William E. Thomson (SBN 187912) Ethan D. Dettmer (SBN 196406) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com aneuman@gibsondunn.com wthomson@gibsondunn.com edettmer@gibsondunn.com Attorneys for Plaintiff THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J. HERRERA Anne Champion (pro hac vice) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA 1 By: /s/ Barbara J. Parker achampion@gibsondunn.com 2 Barbara J. Parker (SBN 069722) Maria Bee (SBN 167716) Erin Bernstein (SBN 231539) OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (415) 554-4748 Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 bparker@oaklandcityattorney.org By: /s/ Herbert J. Stern 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for Plaintiff THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney By: /s/ Steve W. Berman Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 steve@hbsslaw.com Matthew F. Pawa (pro hac vice) Benjamin A. Krass (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1280 Centre Street, Suite 230 Newton Centre, Massachusetts 02459 Telephone: (617) 641-9550 Facsimile: (617) 641-9551 mattp@hbsslaw.com benk@hbsslaw.com Shana E. Scarlett (SBN 217895) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 shanas@hbsslaw.com Herbert J. Stern (pro hac vice) Joel M. Silverstein (pro hac vice) STERN & KILCULLEN, LLC 325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 110 P.O. Box 992 Florham Park, NJ 07932-0992 Telephone: (973) 535-1900 Facsimile: (973) 535-9664 hstern@sgklaw.com jsilverstein@sgklaw.com By: /s/ Neal S. Manne Neil S. Manne (SBN 94101) Johnny W. Carter (pro hac vice) Erica Harris SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 nmanne@susmangodfrey.com jcarter@susmangodfrey.com Steven Shepard (pro hac vice) SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 sshepard@susmangodfrey.com Kemper P. Diehl (pro hac vice) SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 373-7382 kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com Counsel for Chevron Corporation Attorneys for Plaintiff THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA By: /s/ Megan R. Nishikawa By: /s/ Dawn Sestito 4 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA Case 3:17-cv-06011-WHA Document 79 Filed 11/14/17 Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Megan R. Nishikawa (SBN 271670) KING & SPALDING LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 318-1200 Facsimile: (415) 318-1300 mnishikawa@kslaw.com 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 cwood@kslaw.com 13 Justin A. Torres (pro hac vice) KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707 Telephone: (202) 737 0500 Facsimile: (202) 626 3737 jtorres@kslaw.com 14 M. Randall Oppenheimer (SBN 77649) Dawn Sestito (SBN 214011) O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 roppenheimer@omm.com dsestito@omm.com Theodore V. Wells, Jr. (pro hac vice) Daniel J. Toal (pro hac vice) Jaren E. Janghorbani (pro hac vice) PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Facsimile: (212) 757-3990 twells@paulweiss.com dtoal@paulweiss.com jjanghorbani@paulweiss.com Counsel for ConocoPhillips Company 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Counsel for Exxon Mobil Corporation By: /s/ Elizabeth Kim By: /s/ Jonathan W. Hughes Jerome C. Roth (SBN 159483) Elizabeth A. Kim (SBN 295277) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 jerome.roth@mto.com elizabeth.kim@mto.com Jonathan W. Hughes (SBN 186829) Rachael S. Shen (SBN 312658) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 Facsimile: (415) 471-3400 jonathan.hughes@apks.com rachael.shen@apks.com Daniel P. Collins (SBN 139164) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 daniel.collins@mto.com Counsel for Royal Dutch Shell PLC Matthew T. Heartney (SBN 123516) John D. Lombardo (SBN 187142) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Telephone: (213) 243-4000 Facsimile: (213) 243-4199 matthew.heartney@apks.com john.lombardo@apks.com Nancy Milburn (pro hac vice) Philip H. Curtis (pro hac vice) 5 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA 1 4 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-9710 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 nancy.milburn@apks.com philip.curtis@apks.com 5 Counsel for BP p.l.c. 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 E-FILING ATTESTATION I, Steve W. Berman, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this document. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that each of the signatories identified above has concurred in this filing. 12 /s/ Steve W. Berman STEVE W. BERMAN 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 Having considered the parties’ Stipulation and supporting declarations, and good cause 3 appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ Stipulation. For purposes of Plaintiffs’ 4 forthcoming Motion to Remand, the parties shall submit consolidated briefs that will apply to Case 5 No. 3:17-cv-06011-WHA and Case No. 3:17-cv-06012-WHA. All deadlines and page limits shall be 6 as set forth in the parties’ Stipulation as modified therein. 7 8 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 DATED: _________________________ November 16, 2017. _________________________________ 11 Hon. William H. Alsup United States District Court Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case Nos 17-CV-6011-WHA; 17CV-6012-WHA

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.