caesonussre # cea ame [Exempt From Filing Fee CONFORMED Government Code § 6103] Michael N. Feuer (SBN 111529) City Attorney mike.feuer@lacity.org Richard M. Brown (SBN 041277) General Counsel, Department of Water and Power richard. brown@ladwp.com Eskel H. Solomon (SBN 101386) Deputy City Attorney eskel,solomon@ladwp.com ‘THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES LIL N. Hope Street, Room 340 Los Angeles, California 90012 Angela C. Agrusa (SBN 131337) aagrusa@linerlaw.com Maribeth Annaguey (SBN 228431) mannaguey@linerlaw.com David B, Farkas (SBN 257137) dfarkas@linerlaw.com LINER LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14" Floor Los Angeles, California 90024.3518 Telephone: " (310) 500-3500 Facsimile: (310) 500-3501 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT SHARON BRANSFORD, STEVEN Case No. BC565618 SHRAGER and RACHEL TASH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly (Related to Case Nos. BC568722, BCS71664, Situated, BC577267, and BC574690) Plaintiffs, [CLASS ACTION] vs. RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES | CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND through 10, inclusive, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE Defendants, RELATED ACTIONS Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. Elihu M. Berle, Dept. 323 Action Filed: December 4, 2014 ‘Trial Date: ‘None Set, 8457. 021-248509606 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REPLY IN ‘SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONSLINER... 1 Defendant City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”) hereby responds to the “Corrected Notice of Conditional Settlement and Opposition to Motion to Vacate All Proceedings” (“Plaintiffs’ Submission”) that plaintiffs Sharon Bransford, Steven Shrager, Rachel Tash, and Hayley Fontaine (the “Bransford Plaintiffs”) filed. ‘Tue CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT, 6 On June 11 and 12, 2015, the parties in Jones v. City of Los Angeles participated in an 7|| intensive two-day mediation conducted by retired U.S. District Court Judge, Dickran M 8|| Tevrizian, This mediation effort resulted in the parties reaching an agreement in principle to settle 9] all claims asserted in four class action lawsuits involving customer billing related claims stemming 10 |] from implementation of LADWP’s new customer information and billing system.' The details 11 }] concerning the conditional settlement ate being finalized under Judge Tevrizian’s supervision and mn of Settlement will be filed with the Court no 12|| the Motion for Preliminary Approval and Stipul: $2 13 || later than August 17, 2015. e514 Although the parties are bound by the confidentiality provisions of California Evidence 22 151] code seotion 1119, and Judge Tevrizian has repeatedly admonished that confidentiality is to be 16|| maintained at all times throughout the mediation process, Judge Tevrizian has expressly advised 17|| the parties that they could publicly disclose the following important information about the 18 | conditional settlement. Under the terms of the conditional settlement: 9 (i) all customer accounts will be reviewed for accuracy in billing from September 2013 20 | through approval of the settlement by the Court, and a (ii) any customer found to have been overcharged as a result of a billing error caused by 22 || the LADWP’s new CC&B billing system will be credited 100% of all amounts they were 23 || overcharged. 24 ' Jones v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC577267; Bransford v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 26 || BC565618; Fontaine v. City of Los Angeles, Case No, BC577267; and Kimhi v. The City of Los 437 | Angeles, Case No. BC536272 (collectively, the “Settled Lawsuits"). As stated inthe Notice, the settlement does not resolve all claims in Morski v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2g || Case No. BC567722. 38457. 02-243509645 2 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFIS “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REPLY IN” | SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONS 25LINER... aw ew ee a 10 i 2 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 26 27 28 On June 26, 2015, LADWP filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement notifying the Court of the conditional settlement. Counsel for the Bransford Plaintiffs were aware of the conditional settlement prior to LADWP filing the Notice, and, had previously requested to see the confidential Memorandum of Understanding reached during the mediation. In light of the applicable confidentiality restrictions ‘governing the entirety of the mediation process and the mediator’s strong—and often repeated— admonitions that confidentiality was to be maintained at all times throughout the mediation process, counsel for LADWP informed Bransford Plaintiffs" counsel that it could not share information concerning the conditional settlement with the Bransford Plaintiffs (other than to confirm that an agreement in principle had been reached). In fact, after learning of the inquiry fiom Bransford Plaintiffs’ counsel, Judge Tevrizian emailed counsel in the Jones matter, and again expressly admonished the parties not to disclose any information concerning the conditional settlement and stated that he would notify the Court if he discovered any breaches of confidentiality so that the Court could determine whether to sanction the offending party/counsel. Attorneys for the City of Los Angeles relayed Judge Tevrizian’s instruction to counsel for the Bransford Plaintiffs. Despite these assurances, Bransford’s counsel insisted upon a telephonic conference with Judge Tevrizian to air their grievances about not being informed about the conditional settlement. ‘Thus, during a June 29, 2015 telephonic conference, Judge Tevrizian again confirmed that the ‘mediation was confidential. Nevertheless, counsel for the Bransford Plaintiffs now complain to this Court that they were improperly excluded from the mediation, Rather than wait for the Motion for Preliminary Approval and Stipulation of Settlement to be filed to assess the scope and comprehensiveness of the settlement before casting unfounded accusations of unfaimess and questioning the competency of the Jones Plaintiff's counsel, the Bransford Plaintiffs file a premature and ill-founded objection threatening to upend a meaningful and fair resolution of the billing lawsuits. 38457001-243509606 3 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONSee ee 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘The Bransford Plaintiffs erroneously claim that the conditional settlement “has all the hallmarks of a reverse auction.” (Pltfs’ Submission at 2.) It does not. During the June 29" telephone conference, Judge Tevrizian flatly rejected the Bransford Plaintiffs’ “reverse auction” lament, assuring them of the sanctity of the mediation process, the entirety of which was—and continues to be—personally supervised by Judge Tevrizian, As will be made clear when the Motion for Preliminary Approval is filed, both the process and the result achieved by that process for the Class are inherently fair to Class members and quite the opposite of what Bransford Plaintiffs’ counsel now claim. T ‘Tue Notice WAS ACCURATE. Plaintiffs’ Submission is also based on the false accusation that the Notice of Conditional Settlement improperly “implies that all plaintiffs were involved in and reached a settlement.” (Pltfs’ Submission at 1.) The Notice states that “the parties in the Jones v. City of Los Angeles ‘matter have reached a conditional settlement.” Nothing in the Notice implies that any of the Bransford Plaintiffs (or the numerous lawyers identified as representing the putative class members in the billing class actions) participated in reaching the confidential settlement. There is nothing inherently improper when, in situations with parallel actions based on the same or similar claims, the parties in one action act expediently to resolve the case through settlement without the involvement of the parties to the parallel actions. Tl, THE DaTEs IN THE SETTLED LAWSUITS SHOULD BE VACATED. In light of the conditional settlement, the hearing dates in the Bransford and Fontaine matters should be vacated pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1385(c)(3). Counsel for the Bransford Plaintifis will have an opportunity to review the Stipulation of Settlement within the coming weeks as a Motion for Preliminary Approval will be filed with the Court no later than August 17, 2015. A hearing is set for September 11, 2015. Until then, it would be a waste of the Court’s and the parties” time and resources to require litigation, including but not limited to, the preparation of motion and demurrers, hearings and discovery, in the Settled Lawsuits pending resolution of the Motion for Preliminary Approval. 38457021. 203509606 4 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONSeer an 10 Ww 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2m 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: July 1, 2015 LINER LLP . /) i By heyy OC. Are Angela €.fgnsa U Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES 243505646 5 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONSLINER, 00 en CA 50024 3 10 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF RVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action, Lam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, My business address is 633 West Sth Street, 32nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071.2005 On July 1, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL TTLEMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONS on the interested parties in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: | electronically served the document(s) described above via File & ServeXpress, on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXPress website (https://secure.fileandservexpress.com) pursuant to the Court Order establishing the case website and authorizing service of documents, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 1, 2015, at Los Angeles, California. va 38457. 021-243508606 “RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONSLINER... 0 lendor ver: anges cA 3 we wn uw 2 13 14 15 16 "7 18 19 20 21 2 23 4 5 26 27 28 RVICE LIST Bransford v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No, BC565618 (And Related Case Nos. BC568722, BC571664, BC577267, and BC574690) Timothy G. Blood, Esq, Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O°’REARDON, LLP. Sarah Boot, Esq, 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego. CA 92101 Lee Jackson, Esq Gillian L. Wade, Esq. MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP. 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA’ 90405 Paul R. Kiesel, Esq KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Michael J. Libman, Esq, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J. LIBMAN 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 91436 David E. Bower, Esq. Barbara A. Rohr, Esq, FARUQI & FARQUIL, LLP 10866 Wilshire Bivd., Suit Los Angeles, CA 90024 Alan Himmelfarb, Esq, THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB. 80 West Sierra Madre Blvd., #304 Sierra Madre, CA 91024 Gary Luckenbacher, Esq. Sheri Manning, Esq MANNING MANNING & LUCKENBACHER 21731 Ventura Blvd., Suite 390 Woodland Hills. CA’91364 Jack Landskroner, Esq, Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9" Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 TO PLAINTIFFS: “CORRECTED” NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SI PFLEMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RELATED ACTIONS