The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al
Filing
274
ORDER GRANTING 272 STIPULATED REQUEST RE CONOCOPHILLIPS'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tracie J. Renfroe (pro hac vice)
Carol M. Wood (pro hac vice)
KING & SPALDING LLP
1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 751-3200
Facsimile: (713) 751-3290
Email: cwood@kslaw.com
Justin A. Torres (pro hac vice)
KING & SPALDING LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006-4707
Telephone: (202) 737-0500
Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
Email: jtorres@kslaw.com
Megan R. Nishikawa (SBN 271670)
Nicholas Miller-Stratton (SBN 319240)
KING & SPALDING LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 318-1267
Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
Email: mnishikawa@kslaw.com
George Morris (SBN 249930)
KING & SPALDING LLP
601 South California Avenue
Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 422-6700
Facsimile: (650) 422-6800
Email: gmorris@kslaw.com
Counsel for Defendant ConocoPhillips
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
14
15
CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation,
and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the
Oakland City Attorney,
Plaintiffs,
16
17
BP P.L.C., et al.,
Defendants.
19
Case No. 3:17-cv-06011-WHA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING
CONOCOPHILLIPS’S MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
v.
18
First Filed Case: 3:17-cv-06011-WHA
Related Case: 3:17-cv-06012-WHA
20
21
22
23
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
a Municipal Corporation, and THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and
through the San Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA,
24
Case No. 3:17-cv-06012-WHA
Plaintiffs,
25
v.
26
BP P.L.C., et al.,
27
Defendants.
28
1
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
1
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2018, all Defendants in the above-styled cases filed a motion to
2 dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), while some Defendants—including
3 ConocoPhillips—filed a separate motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4 12(b)(2);
5
WHEREAS, ConocoPhillips’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss asserted three distinct
6 grounds for dismissal: failure to adequately plead that ConocoPhillips’s subsidiaries were its
7 agents, such that their California contacts could be attributed to ConocoPhillips (“Corporate
8 Separateness Argument”); failure to adequately plead that alleged in-forum activities were a
9 “but-for” cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injury (“But-For Argument”); and that the exercise of
10 personal jurisdiction over ConocoPhillips was unreasonable under the circumstances
11 (“Unreasonableness Argument”);
12
WHEREAS, ConocoPhillips also submitted a sworn declaration by Christopher J.
13 Dodson (“Dodson Declaration”) to support its Corporate Separateness Argument and
14 Unreasonableness Argument;
15
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs opposed the Rule 12(b)(2) motion by a brief filed May 3, 2018;
16 ConocoPhillips filed a reply on May 10, 2018; and the Court heard oral argument on
17 ConocoPhillips’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion, as well as Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, on May
18 24, 2018;
19
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the May 24 hearing, the Court stated that it would delay
20 a ruling on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion until Defendants’ jurisdictional defenses were resolved and
21 that it would allow jurisdictional discovery by Plaintiffs and by personal jurisdiction Defendants,
22 see May 24 Hearing Tr. at 102:18-103:5;
23
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2018, the Court ordered, inter alia, that Plaintiffs be afforded
24 approximately 60 days of jurisdictional discovery and set an August 9, 2018 deadline for
25 Plaintiffs to file supplemental opposition briefing and an August 16, 2018 deadline for
26 ConocoPhillips to reply;
27
WHEREAS, it is in the interests of all parties to speed a resolution of the Rule 12(b)(6)
28 motion;
2
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
1
WHEREAS, while ConocoPhillips does not believe it has sufficient contacts with
2
California for general or specific personal jurisdiction, due to ConocoPhillips’ interest in the
3
Court reaching the merits arguments in Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion and to avoid the burden
4
and expense of jurisdictional discovery in this case, ConocoPhillips is willing to withdraw its
5
Corporate Separateness Argument and Unreasonableness Argument for the limited purpose of
6
this particular case;
7
WHEREAS, while Plaintiffs believe this Court has minimum contacts with California
8
sufficient to support specific jurisdiction over ConocoPhillips and contested ConocoPhillips’s
9
motion to dismiss for that reason, they likewise are interested in the Court reaching the merits
10
arguments in Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and therefore support the final resolution of the
11
Corporate Separateness Argument and Unreasonableness Argument by stipulation and without
12
the need for further Court involvement.
13
14
15
NOW THEREFORE, the parties HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, subject to the
approval and order of the Court, as follows:
1.
ConocoPhillips withdraws its motion for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
16
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), to the extent that motion asserts a Corporate Separateness Argument
17
and an Unreasonableness Argument. Specifically, ConocoPhillips withdraws Argument Sections
18
II.A and II.C of its opening brief and Argument Sections I.A and I.C of its reply, as well as the
19
Dodson Declaration, and any other sections or factual averments in its briefing that rely upon the
20
Dodson Declaration or upon the Corporate Separateness Argument or the Unreasonableness
21
Argument. However, ConocoPhillips specifically reserves and does not withdraw its But-For
22
Argument.
23
2.
Plaintiffs will forgo any jurisdictional discovery against ConocoPhillips in
24
relation to or pursuant to the Court’s May 25, 2018 order and May 24 hearing; likewise
25
ConocoPhillips will forgo any jurisdictional discovery against Plaintiffs in relation to or pursuant
26
to the Court’s May 24 hearing.
27
28
3.
In light of this stipulation, there is no need for further jurisdictional discovery or
briefing as relates to ConocoPhillips.
3
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
1
4.
This stipulation does not operate as a waiver of personal jurisdiction in any other
2
litigation that has been or will be brought by any other plaintiff against ConocoPhillips, in any
3
forum; nor does it constitute a concession that ConocoPhillips Company or any indirect
4
subsidiary of ConocoPhillips is or has been the agent of ConocoPhillips for any purpose.
5
5.
This agreement does not affect the rights of either party to assert any other
6
argument, claim, or defense in these cases, to the extent permitted by state or federal law, the
7
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Evidence.
8
9
10
6.
This agreement does not affect the rights of either party to seek appeal from, fees
or costs for, or any other right or remedy relating to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion currently pending
in these cases in this Court.
11
12
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
1
Dated: June 5, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ George Morris
Tracie J. Renfroe (pro hac vice)
Carol M. Wood (pro hac vice)
KING &SPALDING LLP
1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 751-3200
Facsimile: (713) 751-3290
Email: cwood@kslaw.com
2
3
4
5
6
7
Justin A. Torres (pro hac vice)
KING &SPALDING LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 626-2959
Facsimile: (202) 626-3737
Email: jtorres@kslaw.com
8
9
10
11
Megan R. Nishikawa (SBN 271670)
Nicholas Miller-Stratton (SBN 319240)
KING & SPALDING LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 318-1267
Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
Email: mnishikawa@kslaw.com
12
13
14
15
16
George Morris (SBN 249930)
KING & SPALDING LLP
601 South California Avenue, Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 422-6700
Facsimile: (650) 422-6800
Email: gmorris@kslaw.com
17
18
19
20
Counsel for Defendant ConocoPhillips
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
** /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
Tel.: (415) 554-4748
Fax.: (415) 554-4715
Email: matthew.goldberg@sfcityatty.org
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
10
11
12
** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the
electronic filer has obtained approval from
this signatory.
13
14
** /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
Tel.: (510) 238-3601
Fax: (510) 238-6500
Email: ebernstein@oaklandcityattorney.org
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY OF OAKLAND and
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through Oakland City Attorney
BARBARA J. PARKER
23
24
25
** Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the
electronic filer has obtained approval from
this signatory.
26
27
28
6
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
/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
1
2
3
4
5
SHANA E. SCARLETT (State Bar #217895)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, California 94710
shanas@hbsslaw.com
Tel.: (510) 725-3000
Fax: (510) 725-3001
6
7
8
9
13
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
14
Of Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Pursuant to the above Stipulation of the parties, IT IS SO ORDERED. The deadlines
3
for supplemental briefing on personal jurisdiction set forth in the Court’s May 25 Order
4
permitting jurisdictional discovery relative to ConocoPhillips are VACATED.
5
6
June 6, 2018.
Date: ____________
_______________________________
WILLIAM H. ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Stipulation and Proposed Order
Case Nos. 3:17-cv-06011
3:17-cv-06012
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?