The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al
Filing
273
ORDER GRANTING 271 STIPULATED REQUEST RE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2018)
1
2
3
4
BARBARA J. PARKER, State Bar #069722
City Attorney
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Tel.: (510) 238-3601
Fax: (510) 238-6500
Email: ebernstein@oaklandcityattorney.org
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CITY OF OAKLAND and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through Oakland City
Attorney BARBARA J. PARKER
[Other Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4602
Telephone: (415) 554-4748
Facsimile: (415) 554-4715
Email: matthew.goldberg@sfcityatty.org
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through San
Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA
[Other Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
Jerome C. Roth (SBN 159483)
Elizabeth A. Kim (SBN 295277)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street
Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2907
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
E-mail: jerome.roth@mto.com
E-mail: elizabeth.kim@mto.com
Daniel P. Collins (SBN 139164)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: daniel.collins@mto.com
David C. Frederick (pro hac vice)
Brendan J. Crimmins (pro hac vice)
David K. Suska (pro hac vice)
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
E-mail: bcrimmins@kellogghansen.com
E-mail: dsuska@kellogghansen.com
Attorneys for Defendant
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21
22
23
CITY OF OAKLAND and THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by
and through the Oakland City Attorney,
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
BP P.L.C., CHEVRON CORP.,
CONOCOPHILLIPS, EXXON MOBIL
CORP., ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, and
DOES 1 through 10,
First Filed Case:
Related Case:
No. 3:17-CV-6011-WHA
No. 3:17-CV-6012-WHA
Case No. 3:17-cv-6011-WHA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
1
2
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the San
Francisco City Attorney,
3
Plaintiffs,
4
v.
5
6
7
8
9
10
BP P.L.C., CHEVRON CORP.,
CONOCOPHILLIPS, EXXON MOBIL
CORP., ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, and
DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:17-cv-6012-WHA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
1
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2018, Defendant Royal Dutch Shell plc (“Royal Dutch Shell”) filed
2
a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient
3
service of process, and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),
4
12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) 1;
5
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2018, “[f]or the reasons stated on the record” at the hearing on May
6
24, 2018, the Court ordered “jurisdictional discovery” as to Royal Dutch Shell and certain other
7
Defendants, ordered discovery as to “whether Shell Oil Company is Royal Dutch Shell’s ‘general
8
manager’” for purposes of sufficiency of process, and ordered supplemental briefing on the relevant
9
motions to dismiss following the conclusion of that discovery2;
10
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell will effectuate a waiver of service of summons
11
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) that will moot Royal Dutch Shell’s motion
12
to dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), thereby eliminating any need for
13
discovery in connection with the Rule 12(b)(5) issues;
14
WHEREAS, to avoid the delay, burden, and expense of jurisdictional discovery and
15
supplemental briefing, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws, for purposes of the above-captioned cases, the
16
portions of its motion to dismiss that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, and
17
Plaintiffs agree that, in light of this withdrawal, jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing are
18
no longer necessary;
19
WHEREAS, specifically, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws its arguments against specific
20
personal jurisdiction in Section I.B of its motion to dismiss other than those set forth in Section
21
I.B.3, 3 and Royal Dutch Shell also withdraws the Declaration of Linda Szymanski, which was not
22
cited or relied upon in Section I.B.3 4;
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
See ECF 222, 225, 17-cv-6011; ECF 186, 188, 17-cv-6012.
See ECF 259, 17-cv-6011; ECF 217, 17-cv-6012.
3
Section I.B.3 is entitled, “Plaintiffs Cannot Show That Their Claims Arise From The
Attenuated Jurisdictional Contacts Alleged In The Amended Complaints.”
4
Royal Dutch Shell therefore preserves, and continues to assert, the argument in Section I.B.3
(pp. 15-16) of Royal Dutch Shell’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion [ECF 222, 17-cv-6011; ECF 186, 17-cv6012] and in the associated portion of Royal Dutch Shell’s reply brief, viz., Section I.B. (pp. 6-9)
[ECF 249, 17-cv-6011; ECF 209, 17-cv-6012].
2
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
1
WHEREAS, with the aforementioned withdrawal, there is no remaining portion of Royal
2
Dutch Shell’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) as to which Royal Dutch Shell is relying on any
3
declaration or other factual submission or as to which Plaintiffs are seeking discovery;
4
WHEREAS, Royal Dutch Shell’s remaining argument concerning specific personal
5
jurisdiction in Section I.B.3 is substantially analogous to the specific personal jurisdiction argument
6
advanced by Exxon Mobil Corporation, as to which discovery has not been ordered;
7
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell agree that Royal Dutch Shell’s withdrawal of
8
certain of its arguments concerning specific personal jurisdiction in these cases shall have the same
9
effect as if Royal Dutch Shell had not made those arguments in its motion to dismiss, and that this
10
withdrawal is without prejudice to Royal Dutch Shell’s right to contest any issue concerning the
11
merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or Royal Dutch Shell’s right to contest personal jurisdiction in other cases.
12
13
14
NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Royal Dutch Shell HEREBY STIPULATE AND
AGREE, subject to the approval and order of the Court, as follows:
1.
For purposes of the above-captioned cases, Royal Dutch Shell withdraws its
15
arguments against specific personal jurisdiction in Section I.B of its motion to dismiss other than
16
those set forth in Section I.B.3, and Royal Dutch Shell also withdraws the Declaration of Linda
17
Szymanski, with the same effect as if those arguments had not been made and that evidence had not
18
been presented.
19
2.
The only arguments Royal Dutch Shell continues to assert concerning specific
20
personal jurisdiction in the above-captioned cases are those in Section I.B.3 (pp. 15-16) of Royal
21
Dutch Shell’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion [ECF 222, 17-cv-6011; ECF 186, 17-cv-6012] and the associated
22
portion of Royal Dutch Shell’s reply brief, viz., Section I.B (pp. 6-9) [ECF 249, 17-cv-6011; ECF
23
209, 17-cv-6012].
24
25
26
27
28
3.
Because of this withdrawal, and because of Plaintiffs’ and Royal Dutch Shell’s
intention to effectuate a waiver of service of process through Rule 4(d) in the above-captioned cases,
Plaintiffs agree that their requests for discovery in connection with Royal Dutch Shell’s motion to
dismiss are moot, and Plaintiffs will not serve jurisdictional discovery on Royal Dutch Shell. Royal
Dutch Shell likewise will not serve jurisdictional discovery on Plaintiffs.
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
1
4.
Because of this stipulation, there is no need for jurisdictional discovery as to Royal
2
Dutch Shell or discovery as to “whether Shell Oil Company is Royal Dutch Shell’s ‘general
3
manager,’” and there is likewise no need for further supplemental briefing on Royal Dutch Shell’s
4
motion to dismiss.
5
6
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Dated: June 5, 2018
**/s/ Erin Bernstein
BARBARA J. PARKER, State Bar #069722
City Attorney
MARIA BEE, State Bar #167716
Special Counsel
ERIN BERNSTEIN, State Bar #231539
Supervising Deputy City Attorney
MALIA MCPHERSON, State Bar #313918
Attorney
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Tel.: (510) 238-3601
Fax: (510) 238-6500
Email: ebernstein@oaklandcityattorney.org
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY OF OAKLAND and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through Oakland City
Attorney BARBARA J. PARKER
** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the
electronic filer has obtained approval from
this signatory.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ David C. Frederick
Jerome C. Roth (SBN 159483)
Elizabeth A. Kim (SBN 295277)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street
Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2907
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
E-mail: jerome.roth@mto.com
E-mail: elizabeth.kim@mto.com
Daniel P. Collins (SBN 139164)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
E-mail: daniel.collins@mto.com
David C. Frederick (pro hac vice)
Brendan J. Crimmins (pro hac vice)
David K. Suska (pro hac vice)
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
E-mail: bcrimmins@kellogghansen.com
E-mail: dsuska@kellogghansen.com
Attorneys for Defendant Royal Dutch Shell plc
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
**/s/ Matthew D. Goldberg
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186
Chief Deputy City Attorney
YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594
Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation
ROBB W. KAPLA, State Bar #238896
Deputy City Attorney
MATTHEW D. GOLDBERG, State Bar
#240776
Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4602
Telephone: (415) 554-4748
Facsimile: (415) 554-4715
Email: matthew.goldberg@sfcityatty.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through San
Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA
** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the
electronic filer has obtained approval from
this signatory.
**/s/ Steve W. Berman
STEVE W. BERMAN (pro hac vice)
steve@hbsslaw.com
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300
Seattle, Washington 98101
Tel.: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
SHANA E. SCARLETT (State Bar #217895)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, California 94710
Tel.: (510) 725-3000
Fax: (510) 725-3001
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MATTHEW F. PAWA (pro hac vice)
mattp@hbsslaw.com
BENJAMIN A. KRASS (pro hac vice)
benk@hbsslaw.com
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1280 Centre Street, Suite 230
Newton Centre, Massachusetts 02459
Tel.: (617) 641-9550
Fax: (617) 641-9551
Of Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs
** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the
electronic filer has obtained approval from
this signatory.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
June 6, 2018.
Dated: _____________________
6
7
8
9
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
NOS. 17-CV-6011-WHA AND 17-CV-6012-WHA
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?