I Ulllllllllll UIl ~II

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet

Oct-10-2013 11:23 am

Case Number: CGC-13-528312

Filing Date: Oct-1 0-2013 11 :23
Filed by: SHAWNA VANTREE
Juke Box: 001

Image: 04233725

ORDER

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CO VS. MARINA

COAST WATER DISTRICT et al

001C04233725

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

F I ~nty
IE D

SBtl FtanoisPo

Superior Court

OCT 1 QZ01J

8~CL~~:T~~RT

Deputy Clerk

6
7

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

10

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO.,

11

12
13
14

15
16

Case No. CGC-13-528312

Plaintiff,
vs.
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, ET
AL.,

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER FOR

October I 0, 2013

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS

17

18

I conducted a case management conference (CMC) this date.

19

The next CMC is set for 9:00a.m., November 15,2013. The parties' joint CMC

20

statement should address (I) the proposed pretrial schedule I provide below; (2) any objections

21

to the phraseology of issues to be decided, provided below; (3) the names of live witnesses for

22

the Phase I trial, a very brief summary of their expected testimony, and a reasonable (not

23
exaggerated) estimate of the time needed for direct. I may use these estimates, and other
24
25

26
27

information, to impose overall time limits at trial.

Issues to be decided. Based on the parties' views as stated in the various CMC statements
filed in this matter, the issues to be decided at the Phase I trial appear to be:

-I-

1. Did the CPUC make a final approval of the Agreements, and if so does this bar the

court's further consideration of the plaintiffs claims?

3
2. Are plaintiffs claims barred by a statute oflimitations under the Validating Act?

3. Is there a violation ofGovt. C. 1090? If so, are the Agreements void (ab initio or

otherwise) or invalid as a result?

6
7
8

Proposed schedule.

9
Parties exchange deposition designations: January 14,2014
10
Parties exchange deposition counter designations and objections: January 21,2014
11

Parties exchange exhibit lists and exhibits: January 21,2014

12
13

File Motions in limine (MILs)? January 14, 2014

14

File oppositions to MILs: January 21, 2014

15

Hearing on MILs & final pretrial conference: January 28, 2014 9:00a.m.

16

File trial briefs: January 31,2014

17
Phase 1 trial: February 3-4,2015
18
19
20

Dated: October 10, 2013

Curtis E.A. Kamow
Judge of The Superior Court

21

22
23
24
25
26
27

I understand that Marina Coast believes the first two issues will be disposed on summary judgment. They may or
may not be, and the parties should not assume the motion will be decided in time to make much of a difference to
trial planning.
2
Counsel must be familiar with these cases before drafting MILs. Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., !58
Cai.App.4th 1582 (2008); Kelly v. New West Federal Savings, 49 Cai.App.4th 659 (1996); and R & B Auto Center,
Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 140 Cai.App.4th 327 (2006) (Rylaarsdam, Acting P.J., concurring). No MIL should be
filed unless it is impractical to raise the issue at trial. MILs should not be used to highlight or forecast an issue for
the Court: That is a function of the trial brief.

. 2-