Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al., v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, et al
Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al., v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, et al
Case Number
VENCI00509700
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 09/04/2024 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion of Defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency to Amend Judgment
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiffs Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition, et al.: Peter A. Goldenring, Mark R. Pachowicz, Pachowicz Goldenring; Kevin M. O’Brien, Kelly M. Breen, Brian E. Hamilton, Downey Brand LLP
For Defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency: Elizabeth P. Ewens, Michael B. Brown, Timothy M. Taylor, Janelle S.H. Krattiger, Stoel Rives LLP; Tiffany N. North, Jason T. Canger, Office of the Ventura County Counsel
For Defendant Calleguas Municipal Water District: Eric L. Garner, Jeffrey V. Dunn, Wendy Y. Wang, Alison K. Toivola, Best Best & Krieger LLP
For Defendants Leavens Ranches, LLC, et al. (Las Posas Farming Group): Matt Kline, Barton (Buzz) Thompson, Russell McGlothlin, Heather Welles, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP
For Defendants Berylwood Heights Mutual Water Company, et al.: Keith Lemieux, Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
For Defendant Zone Mutual Water Company: R. Jeffrey Warren, Klein, Denatale Goldner LLP
For Defendants Samuel and Sylvia Alvarez Family Revocable Trust etc., et al.: Robert N. Kwong, Nossaman LLP
For Defendants Culbert Farms LLC, et al.: Steven R. Hagemann, The Ventura Legacy Group, APC
For Defendants Wonderful Citrus, LLC, and Lemon 500 LLC: Robert J. Saperstein, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
For Defendants Broadway Road Moorpark, LLC, et al.: Robert Kuhs, Lebeau Thelen, LLP
For Defendants Milligan Ranch Partnership LP and D&D Coastal LLC: Julia Graeser Mata, Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP
For Defendants Mahan Ranch, LLC, et al.: James Q. McDermott, Neal P. Maguire, Jessica M. Wan, Shane M. Maguire, Ferguson Case Orr Paterson LLP
(For other appearances see list)
RULING
As set forth herein, the motion of defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency to amend the Judgment is denied as framed, without prejudice to a later motion to amend upon issuance of all remittiturs in pending appellate matters. The court deems the motion as a motion to confirm the delay of deadlines by the Watermaster pursuant to section 5.2.8 of the Judgment. The court confirms the delay of deadlines set forth in sections 2.7.10 and 2.11 of the Watermaster Rules (exhibit A to the Judgment) to conform to the proposed amendments to those sections as set forth in exhibit 4 to the declaration of Arne Anslem submitted in support of the motion.
Background
On July 10, 2023, the court entered its final judgment in this comprehensive groundwater adjudication action (the Judgment). The judgment consists of 72 pages of principal text. The judgment appoints defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) as Watermaster to administer the Judgment. (Judgment, § 5.1.) The Judgment further provides:
“5.2.1. Powers and Duties. Watermaster has the duty and authority to
perform the tasks assigned to it by this Judgment consistent with the terms herein.
“5.2.2. Watermaster Contracting. Watermaster may enter into contracts and
agreements as necessary, appropriate, and in furtherance of the Physical Solution, provided that Watermaster maintains full oversight of the exercise of such powers. Watermaster shall have the discretion and authority to employ or contract with such administrative personnel, engineering, legal, accounting, or other specialty services and consulting assistants as may be deemed appropriate in carrying out the terms of the Judgment, including to employ or contract for its general manager, general counsel, or staff. Further, nothing in this Agreement modifies or amends existing authority for the FCGMA to contract for services it considers appropriate for Groundwater management, including under SGMA and/or deriving from the FCGMA’s enabling legislation.
“5.2.3. Annual Report. The FCGMA shall prepare a draft of the Annual Report and refer it for Committee Consultation as provided in the Watermaster Rules. The Annual Report shall include the information set forth in Water Code section 10728, California Code of Regulations title 23, section 356.2, and all additional information required by the Watermaster Rules. The FCGMA shall, after considering any Recommendation Report issued by the PAC or TAC and issuing a Response Report, submit the Annual Report to DWR and file it with the Court no later than April 1 of each Water Year.
“5.2.4. Watermaster Records Keeping. Watermaster shall annually prepare and publish on its website and in the Annual Report the following:
“5.2.4.1. An updated Groundwater Allocation Schedule, which will include and present all necessary information to properly account for Permanent Transfers of Allocation Basis;
“5.2.4.2. The Annual Allocations Calculation, which will accurately describe the amount of Allocated Groundwater each Water Right Holder is authorized to Use during the ensuing Water Year inclusive of all bases of Use (e.g., Annual Allocation, Leased Annual Allocation, and Carryover subtracting any cure for Overuse during the prior Water Year);
and
“5.2.4.3. The Annual Allocations Accounting which will accurately describe for each Water Right Holder the amount of Allocated Groundwater the Water Rights Holder was authorized to Use during the preceding Water Year, the amount of Allocated Groundwater the Water Rights Holder Used, and whether the Water Right Holder established Carryover as a result of under-Use (and the amount thereof) or incurred Overuse (and the amount thereof).
“5.2.5. Basin Boundary Modification. If Watermaster determines that a
modification of the boundaries of the Basin as defined by DWR’s Bulletin 118 is appropriate to further Sustainable Management of the Basin, then consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 841, Watermaster shall file a motion for an order from the Court pursuant to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction under Section 9.1 directing the Watermaster to submit a request to DWR pursuant to Water Code section 10722.2 to revise the Basin’s boundaries.
“5.2.6. Enforcement. Watermaster will have the authority to enforce the terms of the Judgment, which authority will include at a minimum, the investigation and
enforcement authority granted to a GSA under Water Code section 10732 and authorities granted to the FCGMA under its enabling legislation. This includes but is not limited to the ability to enforce timely reporting of Extractions and Use and enforcement of penalties for failure to report or Overuse, and the ability to conduct site inspections to confirm compliance with metering requirements. Watermaster may petition the Court to issue enforcement orders, upon a motion and hearing, as necessary to remedy any non-compliance with the Judgment terms, including: (i)
to seek a judgment lien from the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 697.310 et seq.; or (ii) to foreclose an Allocation to be Transferred to Watermaster to either be retired or Transferred to another Party to satisfy any delinquent Basin Assessments, Overuse Assessments, or any associated fees related to the Allocation, as is necessary and equitable under the circumstances. Any Party may also petition the Court to issue enforcement orders, upon a motion and hearing, as necessary upon Watermaster’s failure or refusal to enforce the terms of the Judgment. The Watermaster may seek injunctive and monetary relief against any Party or Person
violating the Judgment.
“5.2.7. Emergency and Injunctive Relief. Watermaster may petition the Court for emergency or injunctive relief to prevent imminent harm to the Basin.
“5.2.8. Deadlines for Exigent Circumstances. Watermaster may shorten or extend any deadline set forth in this Judgment where appropriate for exigent circumstances.
“5.2.9. Watermaster Rules. Watermaster shall implement the Judgment consistent with the Watermaster Rules attached to this Judgment as Exhibit A. Watermaster
may, following Committee Consultation, file a noticed motion with the Court to amend Watermaster Rules, which shall be granted upon a showing of good cause.” (Judgment, §§ 5.2.1–5.2.9, bolding and underscoring omitted.)
“9.1 Jurisdiction Reserved. Consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 852, the Court will retain full jurisdiction, power, and authority to oversee and address matters relating to the implementation of the Judgment. This includes the authority to review Basin Management Actions, and to make such further or supplemental orders or directives as may be necessary or appropriate, upon the motion of any Party or Watermaster, or sua sponte, to address inter se disputes concerning rights and obligations arising from the Judgment, and achieve Sustainable Groundwater Management, including: (i) the operation of the Physical Solution established by the Judgment; (ii) interpretation, enforcement, or carrying out of the Judgment; (iii) the modification or amendment of the Judgment; and (iv) rights to utilize available storage in the Basin (other than Carryover and the Calleguas ASR Project as provided herein). The Court shall construe its authority to review Basin Management Actions broadly, consistent with its authority and duty to impose and oversee a physical solution where necessary and consistent with Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution. The Court shall exercise its continuing jurisdiction in this action in the manner it deems necessary and appropriate to ensure Adaptive Management to achieve Sustainable Groundwater Management consistent with the law and the rights adjudicated herein. The Court orders that this Judgment govern all aspects of the FCGMA’s management of the
Basin, whether undertaken by the FCGMA in its role as a special act water management agency, the GSA under SGMA, or as Watermaster. The Court may appoint such other independent special masters or referees to advise the Court with respect to any dispute as the Court deems necessary or advisable.” (Judgment, § 9.1, bolding and underscoring omitted.)
“9.4 Modification or Amendment of Judgment. Consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 851 and 852, any Party, landowner, or other persons claiming the right to Extract Groundwater from the Basin, whose claims have not been exempted and are covered by the notice provided in the Comprehensive Adjudication, may file a motion to modify or amend the Judgment in response to new information, changed circumstances, the interests of justice, or to ensure that the criteria of Code of Civil Procedure section 850, subdivision (a), are met. Absent a strong showing of good cause, the Court will not consider reopening this proceeding to account for new claims. Code of Civil Procedure section 851 and 852 are summarized here for the convenience of the Parties, and nothing in this Section is intended to modify, amend, or expand Code of Civil Procedure sections 851 and 852.” (Judgment, § 9.4, bolding and underscoring omitted.)
The Watermaster Rules are attached as exhibit A to the Judgment and are part of the Judgment. (Judgment, § 12.7.)
On August 7, 2023, defendants Mahan Ranch, LLC, Mahan Development Corporation, Ralph D. Mahan, trustee of the Ralph D. Mahan Separate Property Trust of June 12, 2003, Ralph D. Mahan and Georgia A. Mahan, as trustees of the Mahan Family Trust of June 12, 2003, Oro Del Norte, LLC, Leon Scott Stevens, Trustee of the Leon O. Stevens Trust dated November 19, 1997, RBV 2+5 LLC, RBV-Vanoni, LLC, Debra A. Whitson, Thomas E. Olson, and Thomas K. Strain, Trustees of the McGonigle Ranch Trust dated April 1, 2021, and US Horticulture Farmland, LLC (collectively, the Mahan Ranch Defendants) filed their notice of appeal of the Judgment.
On August 10, 2023, FCGMA filed a motion to confirm stay pending appeal.
On August 14, 2023, FCGMA filed its notice of appeal of the Judgment.
On August 28, 2023, defendants Leavens Ranches, LLC, et al. (the Las Posas Farming Group), plaintiffs Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al. (plaintiffs), defendants Wonderful Citrus LLC and Lemon 500 LLC, defendant Zone Mutual Water Company, defendants Berylwood Heights Mutual Water Company, et al., defendants Broadway Road Moorpark, LLC, et al., defendants D&D Coastal, LLC, et al., defendants Rancho Canada Water Company, LLC, et al., and defendants Culbert Farms LLC, et al., (collectively, the Settling Parties) filed their joint opposition to FCGMA’s motion to confirm stay pending appeal.
On August 30, 2023, defendant Solano Verde Mutual Water Company (Solano Verde MWC) filed its notice of appeal of the Judgment. Also on August 30, the Mahan Ranch Defendants filed their joinder to FCGMA’s motion to confirm stay pending appeal.
On September 1, 2023, defendant Del Norte Water Company (Del Norte WC) filed its notice of appeal of the Judgment. On September 5, Del Norte WC filed its joinder to FCGMA’s motion to confirm stay pending appeal.
On September 13, 2023, the court issued its order denying FCGMA’s motion to confirm stay pending appeal. FCGMA filed a petition for writ of supersedeas in the Court of Appeal, which petition was denied on November 2, 2023. (Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition et al. v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency et al. (B330837) app. pending.)
On July 15, 2024, FCGMA filed this motion to amend the Judgment and Watermaster Rules. The requested amendments are discussed below.
On July 19, 2024, the Settling Parties filed their partial joinder to FCGMA’s motion to amend the Judgment. The Settling Parties support the requested relief in FCGMA’s motion, request that the court hold a status conference at the time of the hearing on the motion, and request that the court set a status conference for December 4, 2024. The Settling Parties disagree with certain claims made in the motion apart from the relief sought.
On July 22, 2024, based on the unopposed motion of FCGMA filed on July 3, the Court of Appeal issued its order dismissing the appeal of FCGMA, and issued its partial remittitur as to FCGMA. (Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition et al. v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency et al. (B330837) app. pending.) The appeal remains pending as to all other parties who filed notices of appeal. (Ibid.) Also on July 22, the court set a status conference for this hearing date and set a second status conference for December 4, 2024.
On July 25, 2024, defendant Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas MWD) filed its joinder to FCGMA’s motion to amend the Judgment.
On August 16, 2024, the Mahan Ranch Defendants filed opposition to FCGMA’s motion to amend the Judgment. The opposition is discussed below.
Analysis
(1) Requested Amendments to the Judgment
The amendments sought by the motion are identified in the redlined version of the Watermaster Rules as exhibit 4 and in the redlined version of the principal text of the Judgment as exhibit 6, both attached to the declaration of Arne Anselm in support of the motion. (Anselm decl., ¶¶ 9, 10.) With respect to the proposed amendments to the Watermaster Rules, there are a number of minor procedural changes and corrections, such as filling in blanks with actual dates and clarifying language. (E.g., Anselm decl., exhibit 4, §§ 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.5.5.) There are also numerous changes to “important dates” when tasks as to be completed or approved. The proposed changes to these dates delay the dates set forth in the Watermaster Rules. For example, the deadline for referral of the GSP Update is June 7, 2024, but the deadline for the PAC and TAC Recommendation Reports discussed by Watermaster is changed from September 6, 2024, to “77 Days from Receipt of Draft.” (Anselm decl., exhibit 4, § 2.11.) It is explained that complying with the original dates is infeasible because of various factors outside of the Watermaster’s control. (Anselm decl., ¶ 5.)
The proposed changes were the result of consultation pursuant to the procedures of the Judgment for amendment. (Anselm decl., ¶¶ 5-9; Settling Parties’ Partial Joinder, at p. 1.) There are no objections specific to any particular proposal. (See generally Opposition, at p. 2.)
(2) Opposition and Reply
The Mahan Ranch Defendants oppose the motion on procedural grounds as follows:
“The Mahan Ranch Parties do not dispute the practical difficulties of the Judgment’s current scheduling demands, and therefore understand the basis for the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency’s request for proposed scheduling modifications to the Judgment. As Fox Canyon informed the Court last year, the proposed schedules were unrealistic. (6/6/2023 Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency’s Opposition to Proposed Watermaster Rules.) The Settling Parties dismissed Fox Canyon’s concerns, and as a result so did this Court. (Phase 3 Statement of Decision at 101-03 [‘The FCGMA details its concerns in a brief filed in the last moments of trial. None is persuasive. ].’) Since last year, Fox Canyon’s concerns have been validated.
“Putting aside whether the schedules should be adjusted at some point, Fox Canyon’s motion should still be denied. As this Court is aware, there are pending appeals from the Judgment in this matter. While this Court opted not to stay the Judgment based on the appeals (9/13/2023 Amended Order Denying Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency’s Motion To Confirm Stay Pending Appeal), Fox Canyon’s motion now goes even further and seeks to have the Court amend the Judgment despite the pending appeals. This Court has no jurisdiction to amend the Judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 198 (‘Varian’); Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629 [‘The trial court’s power to enforce, vacate or modify an appealed judgment or order is suspended while the appeal is pending.’].) ‘This is true even if the subsequent proceedings cure any purported defect in the judgment or order appealed from.’ (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 198 [citing Sacks v. Sup. Ct. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 537,
20 541].)”
FCGMA replies to this opposition by arguing that the court has already determined, and the Court of Appeal has impliedly agreed, that there is no automatic stay by virtue of the appeal and that opposition improperly seeks reconsideration of the court’s determination.
As discussed below, the procedural situation is unfortunately not simple.
(3) Amendments and Enforcement Orders
There is a distinction between the jurisdiction of a trial court to amend a judgment on appeal and the jurisdiction of a trial court to make orders enforcing a judgment on appeal.
“Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a)
“The purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) ‘is to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The [automatic stay] prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.’ [Citation.]” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189 (Varian).)
“In general, ‘[t]imely filing of the notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the appellate court and, subject to certain exceptions ..., terminates the lower court’s jurisdiction.’ [Citations.] As a result, a trial court has no jurisdiction to vacate, modify or otherwise change an order that is the subject of a pending appeal.” (Royals v. Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328, 342.)
“To accomplish this purpose, section 916, subdivision (a) stays all further trial court proceedings ‘upon the matters embraced’ in or ‘affected’ by the appeal. In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceeding and its possible results. ‘[W]hether a matter is “embraced” in or “affected” by a judgment [or order] within the meaning of [section 916] depends on whether postjudgment [or postorder] proceedings on the matter would have any effect on the “effectiveness” of the appeal.’ [Citation.] ‘If so, the proceedings are stayed; if not, the proceedings are permitted.’ [Citation.]” (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 189.)
These principles are addressed in the context of a groundwater adjudication in City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266 (Santa Maria). In Santa Maria, a water conservation district sued two cities, a water company, and Doe defendants to adjudicate rights in a groundwater basin. (Id. at pp. 281-282.) Subsequent complaints and cross-complaints bought in other public entities, water producers, and landowners who claimed a right to groundwater in the basin. (Id. at p. 282.) The matter was tried in five phases. (Ibid.) Before the phase IV trial commenced, the public water producers and most of the landowners entered into a stipulation as to certain of their respective water rights and contains a physical solution for the basin. (Ibid.) In light of the stipulation, the phase IV and phase V trial addressed only the rights and physical solution as between non-stipulating landowners and the public water producers. (Id. at pp. 283-284.) The trial court ultimately approved the terms of the stipulation as applying the non-stipulating landowners, which was incorporated into the judgment. (Id. at pp. 293-285.) Although the stipulation was not binding on the non-stipulating landowners, the judgment independently required the non-stipulating landowners to participate and be bound by the applicable monitoring program set forth in the stipulation. (Id. at pp. 285-286.) Each non-stipulating party was required by the judgment to monitor their water production, maintain records, and make the data available to the court or its designee as may be required by subsequent court order. (Id. at p. 286.) The judgment also provided that the trial court retained jurisdiction to make further or supplemental orders as may be necessary or appropriate regarding interpretation and enforcement of the judgment, as well as clarifications or amendments to the judgment consistent with law. (Ibid.)
The non-stipulating landowners appealed. (Santa Maria, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 286.) After the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court approved certain groundwater monitoring plans and a water shortage and response plan submitted by Nipomo. (Id. at p. 310.) The non-stipulating landowners objected, arguing that the entire action was stayed pending resolution of the appeal. (Ibid.) The trial court rejected this argument, and the Santa Maria court denied their petition for writ of supersedeas to prevent the trial court from ruling on those motions for approval. (Ibid.) On appeal, the non-stipulating landowners argued that the trial court orders were void because the matter was stayed. (Ibid.)
After stating the above standards regarding the scope of an automatic stay, the Santa Maria court rejected the non-stipulating landowners’ argument: “None of the possible outcomes of this appeal would have any effect upon the challenged postjudgment orders nor would those postjudgment orders make the appeal itself ineffective. Each of the postjudgment rulings would have or could have occurred regardless of the outcome here. The trial court made it quite clear that its orders approving the monitoring programs concerned only ‘those who have adopted’ those plans. The [non-stipulating landowners] do not challenge respondents’ right to establish monitoring programs. At best they argue that it was unnecessary for the trial court to make those programs part of this judgment. But even if we were to agree with that argument, the stipulating parties could nevertheless have sought judicial enforcement of the agreement as among themselves either via Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or a common law contract action. And as to the management plan submitted by Nipomo, the [non-stipulating landowners] have not contested any aspect of the Stipulation that applies to the Nipomo water management area. Whatever we were to decide about prescriptive rights, the Twitchell Yield, return flows, or the authority of the [Twitchell Management Authority], it would not have affected or been affected by approval of Nipomo’s Water Shortage Condition and Response Plan.” (Santa Maria, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 311.)
Here, FCGMA does not merely seek orders approving plans or otherwise implementing the Judgment, but seek to amend the Judgment. As noted above, a trial court generally does not have jurisdiction to amend a judgment that is the subject of an appeal. There is therefore a substantial reason to believe that this court is without jurisdiction to amend the Judgment as requested. Moreover, the record with respect to this motion is not sufficient for this court to conclude authoritatively that the textual amendments sought, in whole or in part, could not have an effect upon the appeal. So, to avoid issues as to whether an order amending the Judgment would be void as outside the court’s jurisdiction, the better course now is not to disturb the Judgment by amending its text.
This, however, does not fully resolve the issue because, as is conceded even by the Mahan Ranch Defendants, the deadlines included in the Judgment are not now workable. This court, as well as the Court of Appeal, has previously denied a stay of the Judgment. It is therefore incumbent upon the parties to implement the Judgment to the extent practicable in a manner that does not affect the matters on appeal and is otherwise consistent with law. The Judgment itself provides the solution, but not strictly in the manner argued by FCGMA.
FCGMA points out that the Judgment, “[c]onsistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 851 and 852,” authorizes the court to modify or amend the Judgment “in response to new information, changed circumstances, the interests of justice, or to ensure that the criteria of Code of Civil Procedure section 850, subdivision (a), are met.” (Judgment, § 9.4.)
However, neither sections 851 or 852 nor this provision of the Judgment authorize amending the Judgment while on appeal.
“The judgment in a comprehensive adjudication conducted pursuant to this chapter shall be binding on the parties to the comprehensive adjudication and all their successors in interest, including, but not limited to, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, lessees, licensees, the agents and employees of the parties to the comprehensive adjudication and all their successors in interest, and all landowners or other persons claiming rights to extract groundwater from the basin whose claims have not been exempted and are covered by the notice provided in the comprehensive adjudication.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 851.)
“The court shall have continuing jurisdiction to modify or amend a final judgment in a comprehensive adjudication in response to new information, changed circumstances, the interests of justice, or to ensure that the criteria of subdivision (a) of Section 850 are met. If feasible, the judge who heard the original comprehensive adjudication shall preside over actions or motions to modify or amend the final judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 852.)
As a textual matter, the “final judgment” is final only as to non-appealing parties and, as to the appealing parties, only as to this court. The “final judgment” is not final for all purposes. “A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties [citation] ‘ “when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.” ’ [Citation.]” (Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5.) Here, the litigation continues in the Court of Appeal, leaving an open textual question as to whether the trial court has jurisdiction to modify or amend the judgment that is final for some purposes but not others. Given the jurisdictional transfer that occurs between a trial court and an appellate court by the filing of a notice of appeal, it would be peculiar that a trial court would have jurisdiction to modify a judgment so as to interfere with appellate review. Consequently, in the absence of clear statutory language, section 852 cannot reasonably be read to provide general authority for modification of judgments pending appeal.
These provisions are best understood by analogy to an appeal of a preliminary injunction. The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction by a trial court is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) “In any action, the court may on notice modify or dissolve an injunction or temporary restraining order upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted, that the law upon which the injunction or temporary restraining order was granted has changed, or that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction or temporary restraining order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 533.) Notwithstanding the statutory authority to modify or dissolve a preliminary injunction, a trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify or dissolve a preliminary injunction that is the subject of an appeal. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th 180, 190, fn. 6; Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. v. Avco Community Developers, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 513, 525.) Thus, as in the case of a preliminary injunction, although a trial court has statutory authority to modify an order, that authority is limited by the court’s jurisdiction to make such orders pending appeal.
As discussed in Santa Maria, the court may nonetheless make implementing collateral orders that are not subject to an appellate stay. The requested amendments with respect to proposed deadlines can be framed as such orders separate and apart from amendments to the text of the Judgment.
The Judgment itself provides that the “Watermaster may shorten or extend any deadline set forth in this Judgment where appropriate for exigent circumstances.” (Judgment, § 5.2.8.) “The rule has always been that ‘[i]f the judgment is self-executing and requires no process for enforcement, there is no statutory stay, and, as a general rule, supersedeas is equally inappropriate. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 146, 156.) As noted above, there is no factual dispute that FCGMA cannot reasonably comply with the deadlines as they now exist in the Judgment and that extending the deadlines as requested in this motion is appropriate under the circumstances. The court confirms that that the present circumstances are “exigent circumstances” by which the Watermaster may extend the deadlines to the extent requested in this motion. This confirmation is sufficient to permit compliance with the Judgment without the textual amendment of the Judgment and without its attendant jurisdictional questions.
Accordingly, the court will confirm that the deadlines are properly delayed under the unamended terms of the Judgment. Until the appeals are resolved, the court will otherwise deny the motion to amend, but such denial is without prejudice to the filing of a motion to amend to include conforming amendments after the issuance of all remittiturs.