East Bay Municipal Utility District et al v. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc.

Filing 76

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND. This action is REMANDED to Department 17 of the Alameda County Superior Court before Judge George C. Hernandez, Jr. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 07/17/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2014)

JOHN J. DAVIS JR., SBN 65594
E-MAIL:

1

[e-mail]

ERIC B. MYERS, SBN 223125
EMAIL:

2

[e-mail]

DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3

595 MARKET STREET – SUITE 1400

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105

4

TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for Qui Tam Plaintiffs and Relators
Bill Haley, Harry Rotz and Lew Long

7

P. RANDOLPH FINCH JR., SBN 185004

8

DUSTIN R. JONES, SBN 251335

9

MARKS, FINCH, THORNT ON & BAIRD, LLP

10

4747 EXECUTIVE DRIVE – SUITE 700

E-MAIL:

EMAIL:

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -3107
TELEPHONE: [phone]

11
12
13

FACSIMILE: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendants Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc.,
Crandall Bates, Reginald Chamberlain, C. William
Clark, Brian Miller, Travis Price and Chris Rutherford

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19
20
21

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT; SACRAMENTO COUNTY
WATER AGENCY; FREEPORT WATER
AUTHORITY; CITY OF SACRAMENTO;
CITY OF ROSEVILLE; and CITY OF RIO
VISTA,

22

ex rel. BILL HALEY; HARRY
ROTZ; and LEW LONG,

23

CASE NO: 13-CV-02032 WHO
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND
Assigned to:
Hon. William H. Orrick, Courtroom 2

Plaintiffs,

24

v.

25

Complaint Filed: October 26, 2012
Trial Date:
Not Set

BALFOUR BEATTY
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. and DOES 1
through 100,

26
27
28

Defendants.
/ / / / /
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND

13-CV-02032 WHO

1

This stipulation is entered into between qui tam plaintiffs and relators Bill Haley, Harry

2

Rotz and Lew Long (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and defendants Balfour Beatty Infrastructure,

3

Inc., Crandall Bates, Reginald Chamberlain, C. William Clark, Brian Miller, Travis Price and

4

Chris Rutherford (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants and Plaintiffs stipulate through

5

counsel as follows:

6

1.

In light of the Court’s ruling that the individual defendants named in the First

7

Amended Complaint will not be stricken, the parties agree that, while this action was removed

8

in good faith, there is no longer a basis for federal jurisdiction over it based on the allegations

9

in the First Amended Complaint.

10
11
12

2.

There is no diversity jurisdiction, because at least some of the Defendants are,

and were when the action was filed, citizens of California, as are the Plaintiffs.
3.

There is no federal-question jurisdiction, because the causes of action pleaded

13

on the face of the First Amended Complaint are based in state law, not federal law. Nor is

14

Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act implicated based on the allegations in the

15

First Amended Complaint.

16
17
18
19
20

4.

There is no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this action at this time based

on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint.
5.

Pending completion of the remand and the other steps outlined in this

agreement, Plaintiffs will not request entry of Defendants’ defaults.
6.

The parties stipulate that no later than 45 days after entry of the order to

21

remand, Plaintiffs will file a Second Amended Complaint that pleads the per-person ratio that

22

applied to the hiring of Laborer apprentices by virtue of variance letters issued by the Division

23

of Apprenticeship Standards, rather than the per-hour requirement. The Second Amended

24

Complaint will add no new causes of action or additional allegations other than those needed to

25

allege violations of the per-person ratio requirement. The parties will execute any stipulation

26

and proposed order needed for the Superior Court’s permission to file the Second Amended

27

Complaint.

28
MARKS, FINCH,
THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP
4747 Executive
Drive - Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
[phone]

2
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND13-CV-02032 WHO

1

7.

The parties agree that, once Plaintiffs file the Second Amended Complaint, a

2

stay of the action is appropriate until the California First District Court of Appeal issues its

3

decision in Henson v. C. Overaa & Co. Accordingly, within 10 days of the filing of the

4

Second Amended Complaint, the parties agree to execute and file an appropriate stipulation

5

and proposed order to stay the action until the California First District Court of Appeal issues

6

its decision in Henson v. C. Overaa & Co. The parties agree to execute any stipulation and

7

proposed order needed for the Superior Court’s permission to stay the action until the

8

California First District Court of Appeal issues its decision in Henson v. C. Overaa & Co. The

9

stay will extend the time within which Defendants would otherwise be required to respond to

10

or address the Second Amended Complaint. The stay will be vacated once the Court of Appeal

11

issues its decision in Henson v. C. Overaa & Co.

12
13
14

8.

Defendants will not respond to the Second Amended Complaint before the stay

takes effect. Defendants’ response(s) must be filed within 30 days after the stay is vacated.
9.

15

/ / / / /

16

/ / / / /

17

/ / / / /

18

/ / / / /

19

/ / / / /

20

/ / / / /

21

/ / / / /

22

/ / / / /

23

/ / / / /

24

/ / / / /

25

/ / / / /

26

/ / / / /

27

This agreement does not constitute an admission by any party.

/ / / / /

28
MARKS, FINCH,
THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP
4747 Executive
Drive - Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
[phone]

3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND13-CV-02032 WHO

1

10.

In light of the lack of federal jurisdiction over this action at this time based on

2

the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the parties request that the Court REMAND

3

the case back to Department 17 of the Alameda County Superior Court before Judge George C.

4

Hernandez, Jr.

5

SO STIPULATED.

6

DATED: July 16, 2014

7

Respectfully submitted,
MARKS, FINCH, THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP

8
9

By:

/s/ P. Randolph Finch Jr.
P. RANDOLPH FINCH JR.
DUSTIN R. JONES
Attorneys for Defendants Balfour Beatty Infrastructure,
Inc., Crandall Bates, Reginald Chamberlain, C. William
Clark, Brian Miller, Travis Price and Chris Rutherford
E-mail(s): [e-mail]
[e-mail]

10
11
12
13
14

DATED: July 16, 2014

DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP

15
16
17
18
19

By:

/s/ John J. Davis Jr.
JOHN J. DAVIS, JR.
ERIC B. MYERS
Attorneys for Qui Tam Plaintiffs and Relators Bill Haley,
Harry Rotz and Lew Long
E-mail(s): [e-mail]
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MARKS, FINCH,
THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP
4747 Executive
Drive - Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
[phone]

4
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND13-CV-02032 WHO

1
2

ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION and based on the absence of federal jurisdiction over

3

this action, this action is hereby REMANDED to Department 17 of the Alameda County

4

Superior Court before Judge George C. Hernandez, Jr.

5
6
7

DATED: July 17, 2014

___________________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MARKS, FINCH,
THORNTON & BAIRD, LLP
4747 Executive
Drive - Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
[phone]

5
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND13-CV-02032 WHO