People of the State of California et al vs Vincent Armenta et al

Case Number

23CV05728

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Quash and/or Dismiss First Amended Complaint - No Jurisdiction

Tentative Ruling

The State of California v. Vincent Armenta, et al.                

Case No. 23CV05728         

Hearing Date: February 24, 2025                                          

HEARING:              Defendants’ Motion to Quash and/or Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Qui Tam Plaintiff Steve Pappas: Matthew M. Clarke

                                    For Plaintiff People of the State of California: Courtney Towle

                                    For Defendants Vincent Armenta, John Elliott, and Kenneth Kahn: Matthew D. Benedetto

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

Unless the court is provided with a factual and legal basis for this matter to be venued in South County, it will be transferred to North County.

This action was commenced on December 28, 2023, by the filing of the original complaint by qui tam plaintiff Steve Pappas (“Pappas”) on behalf of the People of the State of California, against defendants Vincent Armenta, John Elliott, and Kenneth Kahn (collectively “defendants”), alleging four causes of action for various violations of the California False Claims Act (“FCA”).

On August 14, 2024, Pappas filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”), containing the same four causes of action, based on allegations of violations of the FCA, against the same defendants. The FAC was served on defendants in September and October 2024.

The FAC is based upon allegations that: (1) The defendants committed numerous violations of the FCA by falsely claiming “custody and control of vast expanses of water throughout the Santa Ynez Valley, well beyond any claimed Indian Reservation,” by making, adopting, ratifying, and advancing false claims of ownership and control of underground water reserves in the Santa Ynez Valley, when the water belongs to the State of California; (2) “Defendants made, renewed and perpetuated the false claim that 75 3/4 acres of land in the Santa Ynez Valley . . . is ‘held in trust’ by the United States when it is not.” (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 2.)

All of the disputed land and water that is referenced in the FAC is located in the Santa Ynez Valley.

Defendants, specially appearing, filed the present motion to quash and/or dismiss on October 15, 2024.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rule 201 establishes:

“For the purpose of these local rules, it shall be assumed that Santa Barbara County has been divided geographically into two separate regions hereinafter referred to as “ ‘South County’ ” and “ ‘North County.’ ” A map depicting this geographic division is contained in “ ‘Appendix 1’ ” of these local rules.

“The portion of Santa Barbara County southerly and easterly of the following described line constitutes “ ‘South County’ ”:

“Beginning at the intersection of the west bank of Gaviota Creek and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean; northerly to intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 101; northerly along the westerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 101 to the south bank of the Santa Ynez River; easterly along the south bank of said river to the westerly right-of-way line of Happy Canyon Road and Figueroa Mountain Road; northerly and northeasterly along said right-of-way line to the boundary line between Township 8 North and Township 7 North; and easterly along said boundary line to the Ventura County line, including the islands of Anacapa, San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz.

“The remainder of Santa Barbara County constitutes “ ‘North County.’ ” This geographic division is coterminous with the jurisdictional boundaries dividing the former Santa Barbara Municipal Court District and the former North Santa Barbara County Municipal Court District.”

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rule 203, subdivisions (a) and (b), provide:

“(a) When, under California law, “ ‘North County’ ” would be a “ ‘proper county’ ” for venue purposes, all filings for such matters shall be in the appropriate division of the Clerk’s office in North County. All other filings shall be made in the Clerk’s office in the appropriate division of the Court in South County.

“(b) Notwithstanding whether venue may be proper in a different geographic area (North County or South County) under subdivision (a) of this rule, any case which asserts a claim under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), under the Williamson Act (Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq.), or which asserts a claim based upon title, use, or regulation of specific real property shall be filed initially in the geographic area where the real property that is the subject of the dispute is situated. Cases subject to this subdivision may be venued in a different division only upon a showing of good cause made to the appropriate department of the Court in the geographic area where the real property is situated.”

When plaintiff filed his original complaint, he filed the required Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum (“addendum”). By way of the addendum, plaintiff represented that this action is properly venued in South County because: “All False Claims Actions are to [be] heard at the Anacapa Division.”

There is no local rule that false claims actions must be heard in South County, and the court is unaware of any authority requiring this matter to venued anywhere other than North County, where the land and water in dispute is located.

Unless plaintiff’s counsel appears and provides a factual and legal basis for this matter to remain in South County, it will be transferred to North County where it appears venue is proper. Should venue be determined to be proper in South County, the hearing on the motion to quash and/or dismiss will be rescheduled.