STIPULATION TO TREAT NON-GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS' RULE 12(b)(6) MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Plaintiff Sacramento Suburban Water District ("Sacramento Suburban" or "Plaintiff") and Defendants Elementis Chromium Incorporated, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Honeywell International, Inc., BASF Corporation, PPG Industries, Inc. sued as PPG Incorporated, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Univar Inc., Univar USA, Inc., Luxfer Holdings PLC, Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, and The Dow Chemical Company (together the "Non-Government Defendants"), in the above-captioned matter, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the following:

I. Recitals

1. Whereas Plaintiff Sacramento Suburban filed its First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in the above-captioned matter on July 12, 2017 (see Dkt. No. 4).

2. Whereas the Non-Government Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Nuisance, Trespass, and Utility Tampering Causes of Action in Plaintiff's FAC on September 18, 2017 (see Dkt. No. 27).

3. Whereas Defendants Honeywell International Inc. and Univar USA Inc. filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC for failure to state a claim on September 25, 2017 (see Dkt. No. 45).

4. Whereas Plaintiff subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on March 20, 2018 after obtaining the consent of all defendants (see Dkt. No. 74; see also Dkt. No. 73, Stipulation and Proposed Order for Staying Actions and to File Amended Complaint by Sacramento Suburban Water District).

5. Whereas Plaintiff's SAC as to the Non-Government Defendants is identical to Plaintiff's FAC. Plaintiff did not include any additional causes of action against the Non-Government Defendants in its SAC, nor did Plaintiff modify or amend any of its causes of action previously asserted in its FAC.

6. Whereas Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiff's SAC is April 3, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

7. Whereas this Court may, in its discretion, treat Non-Government Defendants' motions to dismiss as to Plaintiff's FAC (Dkt. Nos. 27 and 45) as if they were filed in response to Plaintiff's SAC. See DeFrees v. Kirkland, No. CV 11-4272 GAF (SPX), 2012 WL 12885114, at *13 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2012), aff'd in part, remanded in part, 579 F. App'x 538 (9th Cir. 2014) ("[D]efendants should not be required to file a new motion to dismiss simply because an amended pleading was introduced while their motion was pending. If some of the defects raised in the original motion remain in the new pleading, the court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading.").

8. Whereas Plaintiff and the Non-Government Defendants agree that there are no differences between Plaintiff's FAC and SAC as they relate to the Non-Government Defendants.

9. Whereas Plaintiff and the Non-Government Defendants agree it is permissible and appropriate for the Court to treat Non-Government Defendants' motions to dismiss as if they were filed in response to Plaintiff's SAC.

II. [Proposed] Order Treating Non-Government Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss as Applicable to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

1. The Court will treat Non-Government Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 27 and 45) as if filed in response to Plaintiff's SAC.

2. The schedule for subsequent briefing, including Plaintiff's opposition to Non-Government Defendant's motions to dismiss and Non-Government Defendants' replies, will be determined pursuant to the Stipulation to Stay Actions and File Amended Complaint, filed on March 20, 2018, once the further stay has been lifted (see Dkt. No. 73, at 5).

3. Alternatively, if the Court declines to enter the Stipulation to Stay Actions and File Amended Complaint, the briefing schedule will be governed by the October 16, 2017 Stipulation and Order to Stay Actions setting forth a briefing schedule. (Dkt. No. 55 at 4). Pursuant to that Stipulation and Order, the following dates apply:

Pursuant to Local Rule 131(e), all undersigned counsel have authorized BASF Corporation's counsel, Amber M. Trincado, to sign and submit this Stipulation on their behalf.

The court adopts the parties' stipulation and orders as follows:

1. The Court will treat Non-Government Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 27 and 45) as if filed in response to Plaintiff's SAC.

2. The schedule for subsequent briefing, including Plaintiff's opposition to Non-Government Defendant's motions to dismiss and Non-Government Defendants' replies, will be determined pursuant to the Stipulation to Stay Actions and File Amended Complaint, filed on March 20, 2018, once the further stay has been lifted (see Dkt. No. 73, at 5).

IT IS SO ORDERED.