Bushkin v. Rambo et al

Filing 34

ORDER Re: Service, Staying case, etc. Motions terminated: #33 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Acceptance of Service and Coordination with Related Actions filed by Andrew S. Bushkin. (Case management conference vacated. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 5/3/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016)

1

6

BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
Albert Y. Chang
Yury A. Kolesnikov
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew S. Bushkin

8

[Additional counsel listed on signature page.]

2
3
4
5

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11
12
13

ANDREW S. BUSHKIN, derivatively on
behalf of PG&E CORPORATION and
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00973-SI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE AND
COORDINATION WITH RELATED ACTIONS

Plaintiff,
Judge:

v.

Hon. Susan Illston

BARBARA L. RAMBO, et al.,
Defendants,
-andPG&E CORPORATION, a California
corporation, and PACIFIC GAS &
ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California
corporation,
Nominal Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00973-SI
STIPULATION REGARDING SERVICE AND
COORDINATION

1

WHEREAS on February 27, 2016, Plaintiff Andrew S. Bushkin (“Plaintiff”) commenced

2

this shareholder derivative action, captioned Bushkin v. Rambo, et al., No. 3:16-cv-00973-SI

3

(“Bushkin Action”), on behalf of Nominal Defendants PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and

4

Electric Company (the “Utility”) (together, “PG&E”);

5

WHEREAS other shareholder derivative actions, putatively on behalf of PG&E and

6

captioned San Bruno Fire Derivative Cases, JCCP No. 4648-C, and Tellardin v. Earley, et al.,

7

No. CIV 534119 (collectively, the “State Derivative Actions”), are pending before the Superior

8

Court of California, County of San Mateo;

9

WHEREAS another shareholder derivative action, putatively on behalf of PG&E

10

Corporation and captioned Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Johns, et al., Case No.

11

3:13-cv-00550-SI (the “Iron Workers Action”), was filed in this Court on February 7, 2013;

12

WHEREAS a criminal action against the Utility, captioned United States v. Pacific Gas

13

and Electric Company, No. 3:14-cr-00175-TEH (the “Criminal Action”), is pending in this

14

District;

15
16
17

WHEREAS the court in the Criminal Action vacated the previously scheduled trial date
of April 26, 2016, and is expected to set a new trial date at an upcoming conference;
WHEREAS the Bushkin Action, the Iron Workers Action, and the State Derivative

18

Actions involve the same Nominal Defendant(s), many of the same individual defendants, and

19

concern the events leading to the gas pipeline rupture in San Bruno, California on September 9,

20

2010 (the “San Bruno Fire”);

21

WHEREAS following the San Bruno Fire, approximately 140 actions involving claims

22

for personal injury and property damage in connection with the San Bruno Fire were filed and

23

consolidated into Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4648, captioned PG&E San

24

Bruno Fire Cases (the “State Consolidated Action”), which was litigated in the Superior Court of

25

California, County of San Mateo;

26
27
28
1

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00973-SI
STIPULATION REGARDING SERVICE AND
COORDINATION

1
2

WHEREAS the State Derivative Actions have been stayed pending conclusion of the
federal criminal proceedings;

3

WHEREAS, by agreement of the parties and with the approval of this Court, the Iron

4

Workers Action has been stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the State Derivative

5

Actions, and no date by which the defendants must respond to the Iron Workers complaint has

6

been set;

7

WHEREAS not all defendants in the Bushkin Action have been served with process, but

8

those defendants that have not been served desire to waive service of process and all parties

9

desire to establish a uniform date by which all defendants must respond to the complaint;

10
11

WHEREAS all parties believe that the Bushkin Action should be stayed, at a minimum,
pending conclusion of the trial in the Criminal Action;

12
13

WHEREAS by order dated August 28, 2015, the court in the State Derivative Actions
denied defendants’ demurrer on demand-futility grounds; and

14

WHEREAS defendants have permitted the plaintiffs in the related derivative actions to

15

have access to certain limited discovery in the State Consolidated Action, including the right to

16

be provided with notice of certain depositions in the State Consolidated Action and the right to

17

attend and participate in such depositions, and defendants agree to provide Plaintiff Bushkin with

18

the same right to have access to such discovery, subject to Plaintiff’s agreement to abide by the

19

terms of the confidentiality and protective order in place in the State Consolidated Action.

20

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

21

1.

22

the date hereof.

23

2.

The Bushkin Action is stayed pending conclusion of the trial in the Criminal

3.

Counsel for all parties shall meet and confer regarding a further scheduling order

24
25
26

All defendants are deemed served with the complaint in the Bushkin Action as of

Action.

within 30 days after conclusion of the trial in the Criminal Action and provide a status update to

27
28
2

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00973-SI
STIPULATION REGARDING SERVICE AND
COORDINATION

1

the Court, including the parties’ respective views on whether the stay of the proceedings in the

2

Bushkin Action should be continued.

3
4
5

4.

The Initial Case Management Conference currently scheduled in the Bushkin

Action for June 17, 2016 shall be vacated.
5.

During the pendency of the stay in the Bushkin Action, defendants agree to

6

provide Plaintiff, upon his agreement to abide by the terms of the confidentiality and protective

7

order in place in the State Consolidated Action, all discovery provided to plaintiffs in the State

8

Derivative Actions.

9

Dated: May 2, 2016

10

Respectfully submitted,
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.

11
/s/ Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
Albert Y. Chang
Yury A. Kolesnikov
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew S. Bushkin

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: May 2, 2016

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
/s/ James K. Lynch
James K. Lynch
Gavin M. Masuda
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
James E. Brandt
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]

28
3

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00973-SI
STIPULATION REGARDING SERVICE AND
COORDINATION

1

Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

2
Attorneys for Nominal Defendants PG&E
Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric
Company

3
4
Dated: May 2, 2016
5

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

6
/s/ Amy S. Park
Amy S. Park
Richard S. Horvath, Jr.
525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Defendants Barbara L. Rambo,
Lewis Chew, Fred J. Fowler, Maryellen C.
Herringer, Roger H. Kimmel, Richard C.
Kelly, David M. Lawrence, Richard A.
Meserve, Forrest E. Miller, Rosendo Parra,
Anne Shen Smith, and Barry Lawson Williams

12
13
14
15

Dated: May 2, 2016

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

/s/ A. Marisa Chun
A. Marisa Chun
Steven S. Scholes
275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants C. Lee Cox, Peter A.
Darbee, Kent M. Harvey, Christopher P.
Johns, William D. Hayes, Geisha J. Williams,
Nick Stavropoulos, and Dinyar B. Mistry

24
25
26
27
28
4

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00973-SI
STIPULATION REGARDING SERVICE AND
COORDINATION

1

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) of this Court, I, Francis A. Bottini, Jr.,

2

attest to the fact that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of

3

the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on the document.

4

/s/ Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr.

5
*

6

9
10

*

[PROPOSED] ORDER

7
8

*

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/3/16
HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00973-SI
STIPULATION REGARDING SERVICE AND
COORDINATION