Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District v. USA, et al.,
Filing
54
STIPULATION and ORDER TO STAY ACTION signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/16/17. These actions are hereby stayed against the Non-Federal Defendants until sixty (60) days after Plaintiffs file such notification. The hearing date on the currently filed motions, set for 11/17/17, at 10:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED. Discovery is STAYED until the Court issues rulings on the Non-Federal Defendants' currently pending Rule 12 motions and any motions to dismiss filed by the United States pursuant to the deadlines entered by the Court on 9/25/17 for all counts against the United States. Initial disclosures under FRCP 26 (a)(1) shall be due 45 days after this Court's ruling on all then-pending Rule 12 motions. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for 11/17/17 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
JOHN F. BARG (SBN 60230; jbarg@bargcoffin.com)
STEPHEN C. LEWIS (SBN 66590; slewis@bargcoffin.com)
R. MORGAN GILHULY (SBN 133659; mgilhuly@bargcoffin.com)
DAVID M. METRES (SBN 273081; dmetres@bargcoffin.com)
BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP, LLP
350 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1435
Telephone: (415) 228-5400
Facsimile: (415) 228-5450
Attorneys for Defendant
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
RIO LINDA ELVERTA COMMUNITY
WATER DISTRICT,
Case Nos. 2:17-cv-01349-KJM-GGH and
2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
13
Plaintiff,
14
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS;
AND ORDER
v.
15
16
17
18
19
20
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ELEMENTIS CHROMIUM
INCORPORATED, OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
HONEYWELL INCORPORATED, BASF
CORPORATION, PPG INCORPORATED,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, UNIVAR INCORPORATED,
LUXFER HOLDINGS PLC, SIGMAALDRICH CORPORATION, and DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY,
21
Defendants.
22
23
SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN WATER
DISTRICT,
24
Plaintiff,
25
v.
26
27
28
ELEMENTIS CHROMIUM
INCORPORATED, OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
HONEYWELL INCORPORATED, BASF
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
1
2
3
CORPORATION, PPG INCORPORATED,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, LUXFER HOLDINGS PLC,
UNIVAR INCORPORATED, SIGMAALDRICH CORPORATION, DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY, and THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
4
Defendants.
5
6
Plaintiffs Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District and Sacramento Suburban Water
7
8
District (together, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants the United States of America, Elementis
9
Chromium Incorporated, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc., BASF
10
Corporation, PPG Industries, Inc. sued as PPG Incorporated, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and
11
Company, Univar Inc., Univar USA, Inc., Luxfer Holdings PLC, Sigma-Aldrich Corporation,
12
and The Dow Chemical Company, in the above-captioned related matters, through their
13
undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the following:
14
I.
Recitals
1.
15
Plaintiffs Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District and Sacramento Suburban
16
Water District filed actions against the United States of America and the United States
17
Department of the Air Force in the United States Court of Federal Claims on June 23, 2017. The
18
Court of Federal Claims case names and numbers are: Rio Linda Elverta Community Water
19
District vs. The United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00859-VJW; and Sacramento
20
Suburban Water District vs. The United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00860-RHH
21
(together, the “Federal Claims Actions”).
2.
22
Plaintiffs subsequently filed these actions in this Court on June 30, 2017 (Rio
23
Linda Community Water District v. United States, et al.) and July 12, 2017 (Sacramento
24
Suburban Water District v. Elementis Chromium Inc., et al.).
3.
25
26
On September 18 and 25, 2017, Non-Federal Defendants1 filed motions to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
27
28
1
The “Non-Federal Defendants” are all Defendants except the United States.
2
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
4.
1
On September 20, 2017, based on a stipulation between Plaintiffs and Non-
2
Federal Defendants, this Court entered an Order re Scheduling and Case Management (Docket
3
34) that, in addition to addressing service issues, established a schedule for motions to be brought
4
by Non-Federal Defendants. That Order set the following schedule:
5
“All [Non-Federal] Defendants named in this stipulation will file responsive
pleadings by September 25, 2017”;
6
7
“Plaintiff will respond to any pleading motions by October, 25, 2017”;
8
“Defendants will file reply briefs by November 8, 2017”; and
9
“The parties propose a hearing date of November 17, 2017, or the soonest the
Court can hear the matter following the filing of the reply briefs.”
10
5.
11
On September 21, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendant United States filed a Stipulation
12
to Stay Plaintiffs’ Counts Against the United States of America and Proposed Scheduling Order
13
for Defendant United States of America. On September 25, 2017, this Court entered an Order
14
(Docket 43) based on the stipulation staying this action against the United States “at least for the
15
period of time that may be required for Plaintiffs to obtain a ruling from the United States Court
16
of Federal Claims on Plaintiffs’ anticipated motions to stay” the Federal Claims Actions. The
17
Order further requires that the United States will answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’
18
claims against the United States in these actions within 60 days of Plaintiffs’ notification that the
19
Federal Claims Actions have been stayed or dismissed, Plaintiffs will respond to any pleading
20
motion filed by the United States within 28 days thereafter, and the United States will file its
21
reply brief within 14 days thereafter.
6.
22
On September 27, 2017 in the Rio Linda Federal Claims Action and on September
23
28, 2017 in the Sacramento Suburban Federal Claims Action, Plaintiffs filed motions to stay the
24
Federal Claims Actions pending resolution of the instant actions. United States’ responses to
25
those motions are due on October 11 and 12, 2017, respectively. Also on September 28, 2017, the
26
United States filed motions to dismiss the Federal Claims Actions under Rule of the Court of
27
Federal Claims 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs’ responses to those motions to dismiss are due on October 26,
28
2017.
3
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
7.
1
2
This Court has set a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in these actions on
November 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
8.
3
Counsel for Plaintiffs and certain Non-Federal Defendants met and conferred on
4
September 22, 2017 concerning the scheduling of these actions in light of the Federal Claims
5
Actions, Plaintiffs’ motions to stay the Federal Claims Actions, the overlapping issues in these
6
actions and the Federal Claims Actions, and means of litigating the matters efficiently without
7
duplicating issues or needlessly burdening the courts.
9.
8
9
10
To reduce the potential for duplication of effort and overlap of proceedings, and to
avoid scheduling conflicts, the parties have agreed to the following proposed order.
II.
[Proposed] Order Staying Actions Against Non-Federal Defendants And Setting
Briefing and Discovery Schedule
11
12
1.
If the United States Court of Federal Claims enters orders staying or dismissing
13
Plaintiffs’ United States Court of Federal Claims lawsuits, then Plaintiffs’ counsel will file a
14
notice with the Eastern District of California of the orders within 48 hours, or 72 hours if the
15
orders are issued on a Friday.
16
17
18
19
20
2.
These actions are hereby stayed against the Non-Federal Defendants until sixty
(60) days after Plaintiffs file such notification.
3.
The briefing schedule set forth in the Court’s September 20, 2017 Order (Docket
No. 34) is hereby modified as follows:
a. Plaintiffs will respond to the Rule 12 motions filed by the Non-Federal
21
Defendants within 28 days following the expiration of the stay of these actions
22
against the Non-Federal Defendants.
23
b. All Defendants who have filed motions in response to the complaints may file
24
reply briefs in support of those motions within 14 days after Plaintiffs’
25
opposition briefs are due.
26
c. The hearing date on the currently filed motions, set for November 17, 2017, at
27
10:00 a.m. is hereby vacated. Within ten days after Plaintiffs’ notification that
28
the United States Court of Federal Claims cases have been stayed or
4
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
1
dismissed, the parties shall propose to the Court an agreed hearing date for all
2
Defendants’ Rule 12 motions.
4.
3
Discovery is stayed until the Court issues rulings on the Non-Federal Defendants’
4
currently pending Rule 12 motions and any motions to dismiss filed by the United States
5
pursuant to the deadlines entered by the Court on September 25, 2017 for all counts against the
6
United States. Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be due 45
7
days after this Court’s ruling on all then-pending Rule 12 motions.
5.
8
The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for November 17, 2017 at 10:00
9
a.m. is hereby vacated. The parties request that a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference be set
10
to coincide with oral argument on Defendants’ Rule 12 motions or within 30 days after entry of
11
an order resolving all Rule 12 motions filed by all defendants.
12
13
Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), all undersigned counsel have authorized Occidental
14
Chemical Corporation’s counsel, R. Morgan Gilhuly, to sign and submit this Stipulation on their
15
behalf.
16
17
Dated: October 10, 2017
SHER EDLING, LLP
18
By:
19
20
21
/s/ Timothy R. Sloane
As authorized on October 9, 2017
Timothy R. Sloane
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RIO LINDA ELVERTA COMMUNITY WATER
DISTRICT SACRAMENTO SUBURBAN WATER
DISTRICT
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
1
Dated: October 10, 2017
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION
2
By:
3
4
5
Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
6
7
/s/ Michael L. Williams
As authorized on October 9, 2017
Michael L. Williams
Dated: October 10, 2017
KING & SPALDING LLP
8
9
By:
10
11
/s/ Megan R. Nishikawa
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Megan R. Nishikawa
Attorneys for Defendant
BASF CORPORATION
12
13
14
Dated: October 10, 2017
15
BARG COFFIN LEWIS & TRAPP, LLP
By:
/s/ R. Morgan Gilhuly
16
Attorneys for Defendant
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
17
18
19
Dated: October 10, 2017
20
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
By:
21
/s/ Greg A. Christianson
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Greg A. Christianson
22
Attorneys for Defendant
ELEMENTIS CHROMIUM INCORPORATED
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
1
Dated: October 10, 2017
ARNOLD PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
2
By:
3
4
5
Attorneys for Defendant
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
6
7
/s/ Stephanie B. Weirick
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Stephanie B. Weirick
Dated: October 10, 2017
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
8
9
By:
10
11
/s/ Gary J. Smith
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Gary J. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., sued as PPG
INCORPORATED
12
13
14
Dated: October 10, 2017
GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
15
By:
16
17
18
Attorneys for Defendant
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
19
20
/s/ Adam Rapp
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Adam Rapp
Dated: October 10, 2017
21
ARCHER & GREINER, LLP
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
22
By:
23
24
/s/ Landon S. Bailey
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Landon S. Bailey
Attorneys for Defendant
LUXFER HOLDINGS PLC
25
26
27
28
7
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
1
Dated: October 10, 2017
ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES PC
2
By:
3
4
5
Attorneys for Defendant
UNIVAR USA INC. and UNIVAR INC.
6
7
/s/ Alisyn J. Palla
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Alisyn J. Palla
Dated: October 10, 2017
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
8
9
By:
10
11
/s/ Jay E. Smith
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Jay E. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant
SIGMA-ALDRICH CORPORATION
12
13
14
Dated: October 10, 2017
15
MITCHELL CHADWICK, LLP
By:
16
/s/ Clifton McFarland
As authorized on October 10, 2017
Clifton McFarland
17
Attorneys for Defendant
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
18
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
DATED: October 16, 2017.
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
8
STIPULATION TO STAY ACTIONS; AND ORDER
U.S.D.C. Case No. Civ. 2:17-cv-01353-KJM-GGH
3081566.v6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?