Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00592/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00592-6/pdf.json

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

---

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 

 

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART

NICHOLSON GRAHAM LLP

10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 

7

th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90067 

Telephone: 310.552.5000 

Facsimile: 310.552.5001 

Dennis M.P. Ehling (SBN 168892) 

Ashley J. Camron (SBN 216295) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF VERNON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 

COMPANY, AND CALIFORNIA 

ELECTRICITY OVERSIGHT BOARD, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

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. 02:06-CV-0559 MCE-KJM 

Case No. 02:06-CV-0592 MCE-KJM 

[Assigned to Honorable Morrison England, Jr.] 

STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE AND REQUESTING SPECIAL 

SETTING FOR HEARING; ORDER 

AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND 

RESCHEDULING HEARING 

Discovery Cut-Off: None Set 

Trial Date: None Set 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 10
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 

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

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. 

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2006, Plaintiffs Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”), 

Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), and the California Electricity Oversight Board 

(“CEOB”) filed their Complaint against the Defendants in these related actions; 

WHEREAS, on March 21, 2006, Plaintiff San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”) 

filed its Complaint against the Defendants in these related actions; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to a Stipulation and Order Setting Briefing Schedule and Related 

Procedural Issues filed on April 13, 2006 (docket no. 45)1(“Briefing Order”), the parties agreed to a 

briefing schedule for challenges to the Plaintiffs’ Complaints; 

WHEREAS, ¶ 8 of the Briefing Order provides that all preliminary motions are scheduled to 

be heard on August 21, 2006; 

 

1

The docket numbers used herein refer to the docket numbers in Case No. 02:06-CV-00559 

MCE-KJM. 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 10
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 

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2006 Defendant Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County 

(“Grant”) noticed a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (without filing the Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities or other supporting documents) (docket no. 59), and filed a separate Motion 

to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 60) (the “Grant Personal Jurisdiction 

Motion”), and a Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings (the “Grant Stay 

Motion”), all of which are currently set for hearing on August 21, 2006; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the schedule set forth in the Briefing Order, on May 26, 2006, 

seventeen Defendants filed Memoranda of Points and Authorities and supporting documents in 

support of eleven Motions to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and/or other non-jurisdictional 

grounds (docket nos. 111-112, 115-122, 124-130, 132-137, 139-141, 144-164), all of which are 

currently set for hearing on August 21, 2006;2 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the schedule set forth in the Briefing Order, on May 26, 2006, four 

of the Defendants also filed a total of three Motions to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (docket 

nos. 111, 116 and 142) (the “Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motions”), all of which are currently set for 

hearing on August 21, 2006;3

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Eugene Water & Electric Board (“EWEB”) have entered into 

several stipulations extending time for EWEB to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Complaints (dockets nos. 

68, 96 and 174) (the “EWEB Stipulations”); 

WHEREAS, an extension of time on the briefing schedule is expressly provided for in the 

Briefing Order. Specifically, ¶ 7 of the Briefing Order provides that “Plaintiffs reserve the right to 

 

2

The Defendants filing Rule 12(b)(6) Motions include: City of Vernon, City of Pasadena, City 

of Glendale, Turlock Irrigation District, City of Anaheim, City of Azusa, City of Banning, 

City of Riverside, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, City of Burbank, Modesto Irrigation 

District, City of Santa Clara, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of Water & 

Power, Northern California Power Agency, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and 

Grant. As noted above, Grant noticed its 12(b)(6) Motion on May 5, 2006 and filed the 

supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities and other supporting documents on May 

26, 2006. 

3

The Defendants filing the Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motions are: Turlock Irrigation 

District, City of Burbank and City of Los Angeles / Los Angeles Department of Water & 

Power. Grant has joined the Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motion filed by the City of Burbank. 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 3 of 10
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 

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.” 

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs are of the belief that additional time beyond that provided in the 

Briefing Order is needed for Plaintiffs to respond efficiently and effectively to defendants’ motions, 

which raise numerous and complex legal challenges to the complaint, and to consolidate and 

streamline their responses to the Rule 12(b)(6) Motions; 

WHEREAS, the undersigned Defendants do not object to amending the Briefing Order to 

allow the Plaintiffs additional time to respond to the Rule 12(b)(6) Motions, provided that the 

Defendants are also allowed additional time to prepare and file their Replies in support of said 

Motions; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants further agree to reschedule the hearing for the Rule 

12(b)(6) Motions to accommodate such an extension. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant Grant further agree that the hearing on the Grant 

Personal Jurisdiction Motion should be held on the same date as the Rule 12(b)(6) Motions, as set 

forth below; 

WHEREAS, because of the number of parties and the motions brought and the complexity of 

the matters at issue, Plaintiffs and Defendants request a specially-set hearing date on October 24, 

2006 at 2:00 p.m. 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and EWEB are in agreement that, should EWEB file any Motions to 

Dismiss in this action pursuant to the schedule set forth in the EWEB Stipulations, it would be 

appropriate for such motions to be heard, consistent with the schedule set forth below, on October 24, 

2006; 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order does not address the 

schedule for briefing of and hearing on the Subject Matter Jurisdiction Motions (which are currently 

set for hearing on August 21, 2006), which schedule may be the subject of a further Application or 

Motion by one or more of the Parties; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order does not address the 

schedule for briefing of the Grant Personal Jurisdiction Motion, nor the schedule for briefing of and 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 4 of 10
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 

hearing on the Grant Stay Motion (which is currently set for hearing on August 21, 2006), which 

schedules may be the subject of further stipulations or applications by one or more of the Parties. 

STIPULATION

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties listed below hereby stipulate and request that the Court 

amend the Briefing Order as follows: 

1. Remaining briefing on the Rule 12(b)(6) Motions should be conducted according to 

the following schedule: 

• Opposition briefs to be filed and served August 4, 2006; and 

• Reply briefs to be filed and served September 15, 2006. 

2. Hearing on the Grant Personal Jurisdiction Motion and the Rule 12 (b)(6) Motions 

should be rescheduled and specially set for October 24, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. 

3. This Stipulation does not address the schedule for briefing of or hearing on the Subject 

Matter Jurisdiction Motions, and Plaintiffs, Turlock Irrigation District, City of Burbank, City of Los 

Angeles and Los Angeles Department of Water & Power each expressly reserve any and all 

arguments regarding the appropriate scheduling for briefing and hearing on said Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction Motions. 

4. This Stipulation does not address the schedule for briefing of or hearing on the Grant 

Stay Motion, nor the schedule for briefing of the Grant Personal Jurisdiction Motion. Plaintiffs and 

Grant each expressly reserve any and all arguments regarding said schedules. 

5. This Stipulation does not address the schedule for briefing of any Rule 12 motions that 

may be brought by EWEB. The briefing for all such motions shall be established under separate 

Stipulation. 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 5 of 10
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 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

KARNS & KARABIAN 

Jeffrey A. Harrison 

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 

NICHOLSON GRAHAM LLP

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: /s/ Dennis M. P. Ehling 

Dennis M.P. Ehling 

Ashley J. Camron 

Attorneys for CITY OF VERNON 

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & 

WILSON 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Geoffrey Spellberg (as authorized June 

14, 2006) 

Geoffrey Spellberg 

Attorney for Defendants 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER 

AGENCY and ARIZONA ELECTRIC 

POWER COOPERATIVE 

THOMPSON COBURN LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Bonnie S. Blair (as authorized June 14, 

2006) 

Bonnie S. Blair 

Attorney for Defendants 

CITY OF ANAHEIM, CITY OF 

AZUSA,CITY OF BANNING and CITY OF 

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 

ANAHEIM CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Moses W. Johnson, IV (as authorized 

June 14, 2006) 

Moses W. Johnson, IV 

Attorney for Defendant 

CITY OF ANAHEIM 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 6 of 10
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 

7 

DUNCAN & ALLEN 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Jon R. Stickman (as authorized June 14, 

2006) 

Jon R. Stickman 

Attorney for Defendants 

CITY OF BURBANK and TURLOCK 

IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

COOPER, PHILLIPS & PETERSON LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Robert M. Bruning (as authorized June 

14, 2006) 

Robert M. Bruning 

Attorney for Defendants 

CITY OF GLENDALE and CITY OF 

PASADENA 

DUNCAN, WEINBERG, GENZER & 

PEMBROKE, P.C. 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Sean M. Neal (as authorized June 14, 

2006) 

Sean N. Neal 

Attorney for Defendants 

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT and 

CITY OF SANTA CLARA 

JONES DAY 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Peter G. McAllen (as authorized June 

14, 2006) 

Peter G. McAllen 

Attorney for Defendant 

PUBLIC UTILITY NO. 2 OF GRANT 

COUNTY 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW 

PITTMAN LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Benjamin L. Webster (as authorized 

June 14, 2006) 

Benjamin L. Webster 

Attorney for Defendant 

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 7 of 10
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 

8 

MCCARTHY & BERLIN LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Barry F. McCarthy (as authorized June 

14, 2006) 

Barry F. McCarthy 

Attorney for Defendant 

TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

NIXON PEABODY LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Howard V. Golub (as authorized June 

14, 2006) 

Howard V. Golub 

Attorney for Defendants 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS 

ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & 

POWER 

CABLE HUSTON BENEDICT 

HAAGENSEN & LLOYD LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Carla S. Rhoden (as authorized June 14, 

2006) 

Carla S. Rhoden 

Attorney for Defendant 

EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD 

HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Maria L. Fiala (as authorized June 14, 

2006) 

Marie L. Fiala 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Lawrence P. Riff (as authorized June 

14, 2006) 

Lawrence P. Riff 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 

COMPANY 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 8 of 10
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 

9 

CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY 

OVERSIGHT BOARD 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Steven Russo (as authorized June 14, 

2006) 

Steven Russo 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY 

OVERSIGHT BOARD 

HENNIGAN, BENNET & DORMAN, LLP 

Dated: June 14, 2006 By: 

 /s/ Laura Lindgren (as authorized June 14, 

2006) 

Laura Lindgren 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 

COMPANY 

ORDER

The Court hereby amends its previous Briefing Order as follows: 

1. Remaining briefing on the Rule 12(b)(6) Motions shall be conducted according to the 

following schedule: 

• Opposition briefs to be filed and served August 4, 2006; and 

• Reply briefs to be filed and served September 15, 2006. 

2. Hearing on the Grant Personal Jurisdiction Motion and the Rule 12(b)(6) Motions 

shall be rescheduled and specially set for October 24, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3 of the aboveentitled Court. 

3. This Order does not address the schedule for briefing of or hearing on the Subject 

Matter Jurisdiction Motions, and Plaintiffs, Turlock Irrigation District, City of Burbank, City of Los 

Angeles and Los Angeles Department of Water & Power are not deemed hereby to have waived any 

arguments regarding the appropriate scheduling for briefing and hearing on said Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction Motions. 

4. This Order does not address the schedule for briefing of or hearing on the Grant Stay 

Motion, nor the schedule for briefing of the Grant Personal Jurisdiction Motion, and Plaintiffs and 

Grant are not deemed hereby to have waived any arguments regarding said schedules. 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 9 of 10
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 

10 

5. This Order does not address the schedule for briefing of any Rule 12 motions that may 

be brought by EWEB. The briefing for all such motions shall be established under separate 

Stipulation and Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 28, 2006 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 137 Filed 06/28/06 Page 10 of 10