United States District Court, N.D. California
October 19, 2005.
PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS, LOCAL UNION 342, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO Plaintiff,
CALPINE CORPORATION Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JEFFREY WHITE, District Judge
STIPULATION TO DISMISS AND ORDER
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2002, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local
Union 342, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO ("UA Local 342") filed a complaint ("Complaint")
against Calpine Corporation ("Calpine"), alleging a breach of the
Northern California Power Plants Project Labor Agreement ("PLA");
WHEREAS, Calpine denies any breach of the PLA, including but
not limited to any breach of Section 2.1 or 3.1 of the PLA; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the PLA states that "Work performed by
Calpine employees after the mechanical completion of each system
within a unit is not included within the scope of [the PLA];" and
WHEREAS, the parties were provided a full opportunity to
conduct discovery in this matter, including discovery concerning
the negotiation history of the PLA; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to resolve this matter through
a confidential settlement agreement, and desire to avoid any
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed to by and between Calpine and U.A.
Local 342 that the term "mechanical completion of each system
within a unit" as used in section 2.1 of the PLA shall be deemed
to occur when a system is tagged and locked out, but if Calpine
rejects the system as incomplete and returns the system to a
contractor, work performed to correct the system and to gain
Calpine's acceptance shall be performed under the terms and
conditions of the PLA. Further, if after a system is tagged and
locked out, major new construction rather than start-up and
commissioning work is required to achieve acceptance of the
system by Calpine, then such major new construction shall be
performed under the terms and conditions of the PLA. Hydrolazing
is excluded from the PLA no matter when performed; IT IS FURTHER HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to
this action through their designated counsel that the
above-captioned action should be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1), with each side to bear its own costs
and attorney's fees in this matter.
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.