Cal Clause Samples

Cal. CIV. CODE §§3479 et seq.; (xii) Storm Water Discharge Rules, 40 C.F.R. §§122.26, 122.30-37; and, (xiii) all other state laws, rules, orders, directives, and codes, regulations judgments, and orders relating to (i) emissions, discharges, releases, or threatened releases of Hazardous Substances into the environment (including but not limited to ambient air, surface water, groundwater, land surface or subsurface strata); and (ii) the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, generation, treatment, storage, disposal, transport or handling of Hazardous Substances, as such laws are amended, and the regulations and administrative codes applicable thereto. The LICENSEE agrees that it shall abide by all applicable Hazardous Substances laws, rules and regulations, relating to Hazardous Substances including, but not limited to, 49 C.F.R. Parts 171 et seq. The LICENSEE shall not cause any Hazardous Substances to be brought upon, kept, used, stored, generated, treated, managed or disposed of in, on or about or transferred to or from the Airport, except to the extent that such Hazardous Substances are (i) necessary for or useful to the LICENSEE’s business and (ii) used, kept and stored in a manner that complies with all applicable Environmental Laws, the Airport Rules and Regulations, and all other applicable laws. The LICENSEE shall comply with all applicable Environmental Laws and shall not engage in any activity on or about the Airport that violates any applicable Environmental Law. In conducting its operations and maintenance on the Airport under this LICENSE, the LICENSEE shall comply with such regulations regarding the storage, distribution, processing, handling and/or disposal, including the storm water discharge requirements, of Hazardous Substances including, but not limited to, gasoline, aviation fuel, jet fuel, diesel fuel, lubricants and/or solvents, whether the obligation for such compliance is placed on the owner of the land, owner of the improvements or user of the improvements. The LICENSEE shall at its own expense take all investigatory and/or remedial action required or ordered by any governmental agency having jurisdiction or any applicable Environmental Law for clean-up and removal of any contamination involving any Hazardous Substances caused by the LICENSEE. In conducting a clean-up of a Hazardous Substance release under this LICENSE, the LICENSEE shall comply with applicable Environmental Laws. The LICENSEE shall not allow or cause the entry of ...

Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. 132 FERC ¶ 61,148 at P 40 (2010). 12 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Oper., Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,282, at P 30 (2009). Under the Agreement, Powerex, not BC Hydro, will join and participate in the EIM, be subject to the EIM-related provisions of the CAISO tariff, and settle EIM transactions with the CAISO. BC Hydro will enter into the CAISO-BC Hydro Data Sharing Agreement to support Powerex’s EIM participation; BC Hydro, however, will not assume any participant role or undertake any commercial activities in the EIM. Nothing in the Agreement interferes with BC Hydro’s compliance with Provincial and Canadian law, interferes with the BCUC’s regulatory oversight or jurisdiction over BC Hydro, or alters BC Hydro’s non-U.S. jurisdictional status in any way. Nothing in the Agreement extends U.S. legal and regulatory obligations or U.S.-regulated activity into a Canadian province. The Agreement reflects the CAISO and Powerex’s expectation that BC Hydro will continue to operate as a wholly Canadian Provincial governmental balancing authority, transmission owner, operator, and service provider, and generation owner and operator for the BC Hydro system. BC Hydro will continue to manage transmission congestion within its service territory and will retain all balancing authority responsibilities in British Columbia. Powerex’s EIM transactions are defined to occur at the BC-U.S. border, such that the EIM area will not extend into Canada and will remain entirely within the U.S., subject to the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction.13 The CAISO will create an EIM pricing node at the BC- U.S. border, but will not create or publish market prices inside British Columbia. The CAISO will model power flows inside British Columbia and inform BC Hydro of any resulting modeled congestion inside British Columbia, but the CAISO will not manage congestion or dispatch physical resources inside British Columbia. Although Powerex is not a balancing authority or transmission service provider, its participation in the EIM will be fundamentally consistent with the participation of other EIM entities, all of which are U.S. balancing authorities and transmission providers. Consistent with the current participation model for EIM entities, the CAISO’s full network model will include all relevant information associated with the operation of the BC Hydro balancing authority area, including

Cal. App. 4th 731, 737 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2001) (“The purpose of [a credit bid] is to avoid the inefficiency of requiring the lender to tender cash which would only be immediately returned to it.”). When the Teisinas appealed the summary judgment order and several interlocutory orders (CAAP-12-0000529), the circuit court conditioned a stay upon the posting of a $400,000.00 bond. The Teisinas were unable to post a bond and the appeal was eventually dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The public auction took place on June 5, 2012. There were two bids for Parcel 33 –- a $400,000 bid to include the Teisinas’ house and a $425,000 bid from Trustee ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ not to include the Teisinas’ house. On October 25, 2012, the circuit court confirmed the sale. The Confirmation Order states that “the Teisinas’ house on Parcel 33 contributed $150,000 in value to the confirmed purchase price of $425,000” and, therefore, “it is appropriate that the Teisinas’ house bear 150/425ths of the fees and costs incurred in this partition as attributed to Parcel 33[.]” After payment of the respective percentage of the commissioner’s fees and expenses ($12,336.52), Trustee ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ attorneys’ fees ($180,000.00) and costs ($4,100.97), and Parcel 33’s real property taxes ($44,914.26), the Teisinas were awarded $71,750.126 to be distributed when they surrendered their house. The circuit court 6 The Teisinas’ share of the sale proceeds was calculated as follows: Share of Gross Proceeds ($425,000) $ 150,000.00 Share of Commissioner’s Fees/Costs ($ 3,918.66) Share of Property Taxes ($ 15,852.09) Share of Trustee ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Fees/Costs ($ 58,479.13) NET DISTRIBUTION $ 71,750.12 ordered the sale to close by November 25, 2012, unless extended, and “retain[ed] jurisdiction, as needed to assure the orderly transition of Parcel 33 and to make any adjustments to the distribution to the Teisinas as may be warranted if there is noncompliance or delay in [peacefully surrendering their house].” In all respects, the Confirmation Order effectively terminated the Teisinas’ rights to the property. Final judgment as to Parcel 33 has not been entered.7

Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 132 FERC ¶ 61,148 at P 40 (2010). subsection (b)(2) provides that the Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Agreement will prevail in the case of inconsistency between it and the CAISO tariff.

Cal. EVID. CODE § 622 (‘‘The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto ’’).

Cal. Civ. Code Section 2810;

Cal. App.4th 298, 301.) California Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. provides a procedure for the summary determination of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and such summary procedure satisfies both state and federal law. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356.) Under this procedure, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination on the issue of arbitrability.” (Id. at 356-57.) Plaintiffs “cannot be required to arbitrate anything – not even arbitrability – until a court has made a threshold determi- nation that they did, in fact, agree to something.” (Bruni ▇.

Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 132 FERC ¶ 61,148 at P 40 (2010). inconsistency between either of those documents and the Agreement, and subsection (b)(2) provides that the Agreement will prevail in the case of inconsistency between it and the CAISO tariff. Also, section 2.1.1 of the Agreement provides that section 29 of the CAISO tariff, as applied by the Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Agreement, will govern Powerex’s submission of information. Under sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the Agreement, Powerex will abide by the obligations imposed on EIM entity scheduling coordinators, and it will have the responsibility as principal for all payment obligations under section 29 of the CAISO tariff as applied by the Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Agreement. Section 2.1.4 of the Agreement establishes that Powerex’s status as a Canadian EIM entity scheduling coordinator is subject to section 29 of the CAISO tariff, as applied by the Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Agreement. The Powerex Canadian EIM Entity Scheduling Coordinator Agreement also omits section 2.1.3 of the pro forma EIM Entity Scheduling Coordinator Agreement that requires the scheduling coordinator to ensure that each EIM entity it represents is represented by a pro forma EIM Entity Agreement. This requirement is unnecessary because Powerex will not be representing any EIM entities under the Agreement. Instead, Powerex will be representing a Canadian EIM entity under the Agreement.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1542. The Parties do not deem the releases described in Sections VII(A)(5), VII(B)(4) or VII(C)(3) of this Agreement (“Releases”) to be “general releases” as contemplated by California or similar state, federal, provincial, territorial or tribal laws. To the extent that any court construes the Releases as “general releases,” the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class Members, specifically waive any and all provisions, rights and benefits conferred by section 1542 of the California Civil Code or any comparable statutory or common law provision of any other jurisdiction with respect to the Releases. The Parties acknowledge, and the Settlement Class Members shall be deemed by operation of the entry of final approval by the Court to have acknowledged, that the foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and a key element of this Agreement.