Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01323-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COMMITTEE TO PROTECT OUR 

AGRICULTURAL WATER; MIKE 

HOPKINS, an individual; JOHN 

WEDEL, an individual, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

OCCIDENTAL OIL AND GAS 

CORPORATION, a Texas 

corporation; WESTERN STATES 

PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION (WSPA), 

a non-profit trade 

association; CALIFORNIA 

INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM 

ASSOCIATION (CIPA) a nonprofit trade association; 

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., a 

Pennsylvania corporation; 

CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF OIL, 

GAS & GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES 

(DOGGR); EDMUND G. BROWN, an 

individual; TIMOTHY R. 

KUSTIC, an individual; 

MARK NECHODOM, an individual;

LORELEI H. OVIATT, an 

individual; CALIFORNIA 

RESOURCES CORPORATION (DOE 

1), a Delaware corporation; 

and DOES 2 through 100, 

Defendants. 

No. 1:15-cv-01323-GEB-JLT 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION 

This action was transferred from the Central District 

of California on August 31, 2015. (See Order Re: Motion to 

Transfer Venue, ECF No. 95.) At that time, multiple fully-briefed 

Case 1:15-cv-01323-DAD-JLT Document 126 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 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 

2 

dismissal motions were scheduled for hearing on September 10, 

2015. The transfer order vacated the September 10, 2015, hearing 

scheduled on each dismissal motion and instructed the parties to 

“re-file and/or re-notice” the motions in this Court “pursuant to 

the Eastern District’s Local Rules and/or the [undersigned 

judge’s] instructions.” (Id. at 20:1-3.) The moving defendants 

subsequently re-noticed their dismissal motions for hearing on 

October 19, 2015. (See ECF Nos. 109, 110, 112-115.) 

On September 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte 

application, essentially seeking to continue the hearing date on 

the re-noticed dismissal motions until a time after which the 

Court could consider “whether to grant Plaintiffs leave to file a 

Second Amended Complaint.” In the alternative, Plaintiffs request 

a two week “extension of time under Local Rule 144 to respond to 

Defendants’ re-noticed Motions to Dismiss.” (Pls.’ Ex Parte Appl. 

1:5-13, ECF No. 116.) Plaintiffs state: 

 On September 22, 2015, Plaintiffs[] sent 

a letter to Defendants, . . . seeking 

Defendants’ agreement to stipulate to a 

request for leave to amend and included a 

copy of the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint. 

 On September 24, 2015, Mitchell Rishe 

wrote that the State Defendants refused to 

stipulate to the filing of the SAC, stating 

that Plaintiffs’ SAC includes “confidential 

attorney-client privileged 

information.” . . . 

 . . . . 

 Plaintiffs’ counsel . . . then sought 

guidance from ethics counsel who could not 

understand the basis for the alleged 

assertion of privilege by the State 

Defendants. He further sought clarification 

[from] the State Defendants – that request 

went unanswered. 

Case 1:15-cv-01323-DAD-JLT Document 126 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 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 

3 

 . . . . 

 . . . Plaintiffs thus file this ex parte 

application with a redacted copy of the 

Second Amended Complaint. . . . seek[ing] 

leave to either file the Second Amended 

Complaint (with or without the redacted 

information as determined by the Court)1 or 

an extension of time within which Plaintiffs 

have to file oppositions to the Re-Noticed 

Motions to Dismiss. 

(Id. at 5:6-6:20 (citations omitted).) 

Plaintiffs argue: 

[T]he privilege issues makes it impossible 

for Plaintiffs to address in their 

oppositions why the Court should deny each of 

the six re-noticed motions to dismiss. These 

opposition briefs are due on October 5, 2015. 

Plaintiffs seek an orderly method to 

alleviate the Court’s burden and avoid 

multiple motions to dismiss on the previous 

iteration of the Complaint. 

 Plaintiffs thus ask the Court to extend 

time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ 

re-noticed Motions to Dismiss . . . . 

 . . . [T]his is the most efficient and 

fair way to proceed for the Court and all 

parties. It will narrow the issues in 

contention before the Court and save 

substantial judicial resources that would 

otherwise be spent on issues that could be 

resolved through the filing of an amended 

complaint. 

(Id. at 2:4-19.) 

Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ ex parte request, 

rejoining: “Plaintiffs[’] request . . . is an attempt to delay or 

derail this Court’s consideration of the fully briefed Motions to 

 

1

 On September 29, 2015, Plaintiffs submitted for in camera consideration 

a Request to Seal Documents, declaration in support thereof, proposed order, 

and an unredacted copy of Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint, which 

is the document Plaintiffs seek to file under seal. Plaintiffs submitted these 

documents in connection with their ex parte application. However, in light of 

this order, decision on the sealing request is unnecessary. 

Case 1:15-cv-01323-DAD-JLT Document 126 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 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 

4 

Dismiss that are currently noticed for hearing on October 19, 

2015.” (Def. Chevron’s Opp’n2 1:13-15, ECF No. 120.) Defendants 

further counter, inter alia: 

[W]hile it is true that Plaintiffs have 

repeatedly asked Defendants to “stipulate” to 

the filing of [a Second] Amended Complaint, 

for more than six weeks they refused to 

provide a copy of any proposed amendment. In 

fact, Plaintiffs refused even to explain how 

. . . they planned to cure the multiple, 

incurable deficiencies in the First Amended 

Complaint . . . . 

 . . . In fact, even now, Plaintiffs do 

not claim that the proposed amended pleading 

cures all of the multiple deficiencies 

Defendants have identified. 

 Similarly baseless is the notion that 

because the State Defendants . . . have 

notified all parties that Plaintiffs’ 

proposed Second Amended Complaint contains 

attorney-client privileged communications, it 

is somehow “impossible for Plaintiffs to 

address in their oppositions why the Court 

should deny each of the six re-noticed 

motions to dismiss.” Dkt. 116, Application at 

2. First, Plaintiffs have already filed 

opposition briefs, and Plaintiffs offer no 

explanation why the transfer of this case 

from the Central to the Eastern District 

entitles them to file new opposition briefs 

when the motions to dismiss were fully 

briefed before the transfer order. The 

State’s privilege claim with respect to the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint does not 

impact the already filed opposition briefs, 

over which the State has not asserted 

privilege. Second, Plaintiffs do not explain 

how allegations that are not contained in the 

operative pleading could be grounds to deny 

motions to dismiss the operative complaint, 

whether or not they are something Plaintiff 

would like to put in yet another Amended 

Complaint. 

 

2

 Each Defendant has joined in Defendant Chevron U.S.A., Inc.’s 

Opposition. (See ECF Nos. 121-125.) Some of the Defendants make in their 

joinder notices additional arguments in opposition to Plaintiffs’ ex parte 

application. (See, e.g., State Defs.’ Opp’n 2:1-3, ECF No. 122.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01323-DAD-JLT Document 126 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 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 

5 

 In sum, Plaintiffs’ Application is 

without merit and should be denied. 

(Id. at 1:20-24, 2:23-3:15.) 

The State Defendants additionally counter: 

 Plaintiffs’ asserted emergency basis for 

requesting ex parte relief is simply that no 

hearing date was available for th[eir] . . . 

request for leave [to amend] before the date 

of the hearing on [the pending dismissal 

motions]. Plaintiffs provide no explanation 

as to why it is necessary to hear th[eir] . . 

. request for leave to amend on an ex parte 

basis . . . . 

(State Defs.’ Opp’n 2:9-14, ECF No. 122.) 

Defendant Kern County Planning Director Lorelei H. 

Oviatt “further opposes Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application on the 

grounds that all of the requested relief therein would improperly 

subject [her] to additional, unwarranted litigation despite clear 

authority providing that [she] is immune from suit as a result of 

her absolute and qualified immunity.” (Oviatt Not. Joinder 1:7-

10, ECF No. 124 (citation omitted).) Oviatt argues: 

 In briefing the presently-filed motion 

to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, 

Oviatt has already incurred the only 

permissible “burden of litigation” for an 

official who has immunity from suit for the 

alleged claims. See, e.g., Mitchell v. 

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-526 (1985) 

(immunity of public officials should be 

determined as quickly as possible to avoid 

undesirable consequences, including “the 

general costs of subjecting officials to the 

risks of trial – distraction of officials 

from their governmental duties, inhibition of 

discretionary action, and deterrence of able 

people from public service.”). For this 

additional reason, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 

Application should be denied and the 

currently-filed motions to dismiss should be 

heard as scheduled on October 19, 2015. 

(Id. at 1:15-2:2.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01323-DAD-JLT Document 126 Filed 10/01/15 Page 5 of 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 

6 

Plaintiffs have not shown sufficient justification for 

the requested extensions. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ ex parte 

application is DENIED. 

Dated: October 1, 2015 

 

Case 1:15-cv-01323-DAD-JLT Document 126 Filed 10/01/15 Page 6 of 6