Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00559-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

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

27

28

Benjamin T. Reyes, II (SBN 165380) 

Geoffrey Spellberg (SBN 121079) 

Kevin E. Gilbert (SBN 209236) 

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 

555 12th Street, Suite 1500 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Telephone: 510.808.2000 

Facsimile: 510.444.1108 

Attorneys for Defendants 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY & 

ARIZONA ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Southern California Edison Company, and 

California Electricity Oversight Board, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., 

City of Anaheim; City of Azusa; City of 

Banning; City of Burbank; City of Glendale; 

City of Los Angeles; City of Pasadena; City 

of Riverside; City of Santa Clara; City of 

Seattle; City of Vernon; Eugene Water and 

Electric Board; Los Angeles Department of 

Water and Power; Modesto Irrigation 

District; Northern California Power Agency; 

Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Salt 

River Project Agricultural Improvement and 

Power District; and Turlock Irrigation 

District, 

Defendants. 

Case No: 2:06-CV-0559-MCE-KJM 

 

STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND RELATED 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES 

 

/ 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MCE -KJM Document 45 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 7
 2

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

27

28

San Diego Gas & Electric Company, a 

California Corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., 

City of Anaheim; City of Azusa; City of 

Banning; City of Burbank; City of Glendale; 

City of Los Angeles; City of Pasadena; City 

of Riverside; City of Santa Clara; City of 

Seattle; City of Vernon; Eugene Water and 

Electric Board; Los Angeles Department of 

Water and Power; Modesto Irrigation 

District; Northern California Power Agency; 

Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Salt 

River Project Agricultural Improvement and 

Power District; and Turlock Irrigation 

District, 

Defendants. 

Case No: 2:06-CV-0592-MCE-KJM 

 

 

/ 

Comes now plaintiffs and those defendants whose names appear below (the 

“stipulating parties”), by and through their attorneys of record and hereby stipulate and 

request the Court enter an order as follows: 

Whereas, plaintiffs Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison 

Company, and California Electricity Oversight Board filed a complaint on or about March 

16, 2006 against defendants regarding questions of fact and law pertaining to pricing 

disputes as to the buying and selling of electrical power in the California market; and 

Whereas, a similar complaint has also been filed by San Diego Gas & Electric 

Company bearing case number 2:06-CV-00592 against the same defendants, which is 

currently pending in the United States District Court Eastern District; and 

Whereas, both litigations raise many similar questions of law and fact and involve 

virtually the same parties, with the exception of plaintiffs; and 

Whereas, on March 28, 2006 the Court filed an Order finding the cases related 

within the meaning of Local Rule 83-123(a); 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MCE -KJM Document 45 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 7
 3

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

27

28

Whereas, plaintiffs have previously stipulated to a one week continuance for all 

defendants to respond to the Complaint while the parties continued to negotiate this 

stipulation; and 

Whereas, the stipulating parties are desirous of attempting to set forth a briefing 

schedule as well as propose stipulations pertaining to various procedural matters in 

hopes of promoting judicial efficiency and assuring efficient use of resources in furthering 

these litigations. 

Therefore, the stipulating parties hereby stipulate and request the Court enter an 

order pursuant to Local Rule 6-144 as follows: 

1. In order to allow the stipulating parties an opportunity to consolidate the 

briefings and legal arguments as well as promote judicial efficiency, the time to respond 

to the complaint shall be further extended so as to allow the stipulating parties to address 

the pending disputes pertaining to both jurisdictional issues and the adequacy of the 

pleadings at issue herein, as set forth in more detail herein below in the briefing 

schedule. 

2. Any motions to challenge jurisdiction (including without limitation personal 

jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue or inconvenient forum) or under 

Rule 12 (including without limitation, Motions to Dismiss) shall be submitted for hearing 

pursuant to the briefing schedules set forth herein below. 

3. The provisions herein shall not be deemed to restrict or prejudice any 

stipulating party's rights, claims, defenses or obligations as otherwise applicable, and no 

stipulating party's entry into this stipulation shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by that 

stipulating party of any argument or objection that party has or might have, including but 

not limited to those based on ripeness, standing, jurisdiction, venue, or service of 

process. 

4. The Rule 26(f) conference and all related obligations are to be postponed 

until 60 days following the hearing on the above-referenced motions, or to a later date to 

be negotiated by counsel and approved by the Court. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MCE -KJM Document 45 Filed 04/13/06 Page 3 of 7
 4

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

27

28

5. The briefing schedule for any preliminary motions, inclusive of any motions 

under Rule 12 of the FRCP, shall be as follows: 

a. Personal Jurisdiction Motions (Rule 12(b)(2)): 

• Identification of parties moving to contest personal jurisdiction by 

April 12, 2006; 

• Opening Briefs to be served May 5, 2006; 

• Opposition Briefs to be served June 16, 2006; 

• Reply Briefs to be served July 7, 2006; 

b. All Other Rule 12 Motions (other than Rule 12(b)(2)): 

• Opening Briefs and/or Joinders and Supplemental Briefs to be 

served May 26, 2006; 

• Opposition Briefs to be served June 30, 2006; 

• Reply Briefs to be served July 21, 2006. 

6. Any stipulating party bringing motions under both paragraphs 5.a. and 5.b. 

shall file its motions at the time prescribed by paragraph 5.a, but may file its briefs and 

other papers in support of its non-Rule 12(b)(2) motions at the time prescribed by this 

briefing schedule, notwithstanding the provisions of Local Rule 78-230. 

7. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek additional time for their opposition briefs 

following service of the motions, depending upon the number of motions submitted and/or 

the nature of the issues raised therein. Defendants reserve the right to seek additional 

time for their reply briefs following service of the opposition briefs. 

8. Hearing on these matters shall be August 14, 2006 before the Honorable 

Morrison C. England, Jr. or as otherwise ordered by the Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

Dated: April 10, 2006 By: ____________/s/_____________________ 

 Marie L. Fiala 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MCE -KJM Document 45 Filed 04/13/06 Page 4 of 7
 5

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

27

28

 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: ______________/s/___________________ 

 Lawrence P. Riff 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Southern California Edison Company 

 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: ________________/s/_________________ 

 Steven Russo 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 California Electricity Oversight Board 

 HENNIGAN, BENNET & DORMAN LLP 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _______________/s/__________________ 

 Laura Lindgren 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 San Diego Gas & Electric Company 

 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 

Dated:April 11, 2006 By: _____________/s/___________________ 

Geoffrey Spellberg 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Northern California Power Agency & 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 

Dated:April 7, 2006 By: ________________/s/________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Anaheim 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/____________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Azusa

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/____________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Banning 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/ _________________ 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MCE -KJM Document 45 Filed 04/13/06 Page 5 of 7
 6

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

27

28

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Burbank 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: ______________/s/__________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Glendale 

Dated: April 11, 2006 By: ______________/s/__________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Los Angeles 

Dated: April 11, 2006 By: ______________/s/___________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 

Dated: April 10, 2006 By: ______________/s/___________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Pasadena 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/____________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Riverside 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _______________/s/__________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Santa Clara 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/____________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Seattle, Washington 

Dated: April 9, 2006 By: ___________/s/_____________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 City of Vernon, California 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/___________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Eugene Water and Electric Board 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/________________ _ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Modesto Irrigation District 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MCE -KJM Document 45 Filed 04/13/06 Page 6 of 7
 7

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

27

28

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: ______________/s/__ ______________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Public Utility No. 2 of Grant County 

Dated:April 8, 2006 By: ______________/s/___________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

Dated:April 10, 2006 By: _____________/s/____________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Salt River Project Agricultural 

 Improvement and Power District 

Dated: April 10, 2006 By: ______________/s/___________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Turlock Irrigation District 

THE COURT HEREBY ADOPTS THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AS AN 

ORDER OF THE COURT WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE HEARING ON THIS 

MATTER IS SET FOR AUGUST 21, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM 3. 

Dated: April 12, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-00559-MCE -KJM Document 45 Filed 04/13/06 Page 7 of 7