Sacramento Suburban Water District v. Elementis Chromium Inc. et al

Filing 55

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, at10:00 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)

Download PDF
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?