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, 12/18/2024 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
1) Motion of Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency to Disqualify Nossaman LLP as Counsel; 2) Mtn of Balcom Defendants to Modify or to Amend Judgment; 3) Mtn of Omitted Rights Holders for Leave to Intervene; and4) Mtn of Balcom Defendants to Bifurcate
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, Heraclio Pimentel, 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 Balcom Defendants (listed herein) and Omitted Rights Holders (listed herein):
Michael L. Tidus, Boyd L. Hill, Josh J. Anderson, Jackson Tidus
RULING
(1) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency to disqualify Nossaman LLP as counsel is granted.
(2) As set forth herein, the motion of the Balcom Defendants to modify or to amend Judgment is deferred. The motion of the Balcom Defendants to bifurcate is granted to the extent that the court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on the notice issues (identified herein) and thereafter will defer resolution of remaining issues on the motion to modify, if any, until after the remittitur issues from the Court of Appeal in the pending appeal.
(3) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of the Omitted Rights Holders (as defined herein) for leave to intervene is granted. On or before January 3, 2025, the Omitted Rights Holders shall file and serve a clean copy of their complaint-in-intervention in the form attached to the motion. All parties to this action are deemed to have answered the complaint-in-intervention upon its filing, denying all material allegations thereof and putting at issue all applicable affirmative defenses. The court will address the notice issues asserted in the complaint-in-intervention in the evidentiary hearing ordered herein. Except for the evidentiary hearing ordered herein, including ancillary proceedings related to such hearing, such as discovery, proceedings on the complaint-in-intervention are stayed pending issuance of the remittitur from the Court of Appeal and further order of this court.
(4) Counsel for all interested parties will appear at the hearing of these matters and be prepared to discuss scheduling of the evidentiary hearing ordered herein.
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. Among other things, the Judgment provides:
“E. Service of Complaint, Notice of Groundwater Basin Adjudication, and Form Answer. Plaintiffs served the Complaint, the court-approved notice of commencement of groundwater basin adjudication, and the court-approved Form Answer in accordance with the statutory provisions governing this adjudication. [Citations.] All holders of fee title to real property in the Basin were identified using the assessors records of the County of Ventura, and were served the Notice, Complaint, and Form Answer by registered mail, return receipt requested as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 836. Where the physical address of the real property differed from the mailing address of the holder of fee title, the Notice, Complaint, and Form Answer were mailed by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the physical address of the real property and the mailing address of the holder of fee title. A notice of completion of mailing was filed with the Court on June 3, 2019, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 836.” (Judgment, Introduction, § E, bolding and underscoring omitted.)
“F. Publication of Notice. Plaintiffs provided the Notice and Form Answer to DWR and the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (‘FCGMA’). DWR and the FCGMA provided a link to the Notice and Form Answer on the home page of their respective websites consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 836(m). The notice was also published at least once per week for four consecutive weeks in the Ventura County Star, a newspaper of general circulation in the County of Ventura on all persons interested in the proceeding, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 836 and orders of the Court.” (Judgment, Introduction, § F, bolding and underscoring omitted.)
“G. Parties. All Persons that own a parcel in the Basin, Extract or store water in the Basin, or claim any other possible rights in the Basin are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 830 et seq. All such Parties received numerous notices of their right to participate in this Comprehensive Adjudication, including the statutory notice described above; open, public pretrial and trial proceedings in all phases of the case; and extensive additional individual efforts by existing parties to notify their neighbors about the adjudication, including public meetings, meetings of mutual water companies, FCGMA meetings, newsletters, and various other communications. The Court allowed any and all parties who wished to join the case to do so. Several parties chose not to appear in the case or at various phases of trial, or to appear very late, despite repeated notice and numerous opportunities to participate. All parties who chose to appear received ample opportunity to present their evidence and arguments in the proper course of proceedings. In all cases, the Court thoroughly considered the Parties’ submissions and evidence, and found that the proceedings satisfied due process and all statutory requirements.” (Judgment, Introduction, § G, bolding and underscoring omitted.)
“H. Jurisdiction. By the pleadings herein, operation of Code of Civil Procedure sections 830 et seq., and by Order of the Court, the case presents an adjudication with in personam and in rem jurisdiction, in which any and all Groundwater rights as between each and all of the Parties is determined. Having complied with the notice and service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 836, the in rem jurisdiction over all Groundwater rights in the Basin and the comprehensive effect of this Comprehensive Adjudication have been established. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and all Parties herein.” (Judgment, Introduction, § H, 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.)
“10.1 All Groundwater-rights claimants and all other Persons have had ample opportunity to participate in these proceedings and due process is satisfied.” (Judgment, § 10.1.)
“10.5 Plaintiffs complied with the service and notice provisions of Code of Civil Procedure sections 835 and 836, which compliance is deemed effective service of process of the Complaint and notice on all interested parties of the Comprehensive Adjudication of the Basin for purposes of establishing in rem jurisdiction and the comprehensive binding effect of the Comprehensive Adjudication, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 836(j) and 851.” (Judgment, § 10.5.)
“10.6 Any and all rights to Extract and Use water in the Basin are comprehensively determined herein consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 830(b)(7) and 834. Any and all unexercised rights and future rights to Use water in the Basin are subordinated to all rights of the Parties currently being exercised and rights authorized under this Judgment, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 830(b)(7).” (Judgment, § 10.6.)
“11.1 Binding on Parties. The Judgment is 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 Use Groundwater from the Basin, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 851.” (Judgment, § 11.1, bolding and underscoring omitted.)
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, docket [as of Dec. 11, 2024].)
On July 15, 2024, FCGMA filed a motion to amend the Judgment and Watermaster Rules.
On July 19, 2024, the Settling Parties filed their partial joinder to FCGMA’s motion to amend the Judgment.
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 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, docket [as of Dec. 11, 2024].) The appeal remains pending as to all other parties who filed notices of appeal. (Ibid.)
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.
On September 4, 2024, the court denied the motion to amend the Judgment as framed, but deemed the motion as a motion to confirm the delay of compliance deadlines pursuant to the terms of the Judgment and granted the reframed motion confirming such deadlines. In reframing the motion, the court explained that the pendency of the appeal deprived the court of jurisdiction to modify or to amend the Judgment.
On September 25, 2024, defendants Marvin Franklin, Adan Chairez, successor trustee of the Jose I. Chairez and Rosa D. Chairez Revocable Trust, Richard F. Rhoads and Brenda Rhoads, as trustees of the Rhoads 1987 Family Trust dated February 25, 1987, Terry Phillips, trustee of the Phillips Trust dated January 22, 1997, Harold Douglas Sulser, Zeferino Garcia and Maria Francisco, Brian Williams and Caran Williams (collectively, Balcom Defendants) filed their motion to modify or amend the Judgment. The Balcom Defendants assert that they are joint owners of the Balcom Canyon Water Well. The Balcom Defendants further assert that they were not provided statutorily required notice of this adjudication, were brought in at a late stage of this adjudication, and were incorrectly excluded from service lists during the adjudication. The Balcom Defendants thus argue that they were deprived of their rights to assert their respective water rights. By this motion, the Balcom Defendants seek to modify or amend the Judgment to reflect their asserted water rights.
On September 26, 2024, defendants Daryl E. Smith and Susan, trustees of the Daryl and Susan Smith Family Trust dated November 30, 2015, Joe Gillaspy and Cheryl Gillaspy, trustees, Gillaspy Family 2004 Revocable Trust dated June 8, 2004, Gary G. Cerveny and Diane Cerveny, trustees of the Cerveny Family Trust dated 11/8/1992 as restated on April 3, 2017, Laureate Farm Trust dated October 8, 2012, Richard W. Gray and Laura C. Gray, trustees, Mina Laya Haddadzadeh, trustee of the Mina Laya Haddadzadeh Trust dated October 9, 2017, SSL Management LLC, Sunil Kumar Sreerama, Ventavo Farms LLC, Douglas J. Homze and Sharon M. Homze as trustees of the Homze Family Living Trust, dated 9/22/23, Robert J. Perry and Alda L. Perry, trustee of the Perry Family Trust dated September 24, 2015, and Robert J. Perry II, Mohammad Riaz and Parveen Akhtar Riaz, trustees of the Riaz Family Trust, dated February 26, 2009, Jacob A. Dakessian and Sylvia A. Dakessian, co-trustees of the Jacob A. Dakessian Trust, formerly the Survivor’s Trust established under the Dakessian Family Trusts and Sylvia A. Dakessian, as trustee of the Unified Credit Trust established under the Dakessian Family Trusts, Ashish Shah and Payal Kamdar, Beardsley Associates, a California General Partnership, Debra B. Tash, as trustee of the George Tash Administrative Trust created under the George Tash and Debra B. Tash Inter Vivos Trust agreement dated November 25, 1985, as amended and fully restated on July 18, 2022 (collectively, Omitted Rights Holders) filed their motion to intervene to assert their respective water rights. Each of the Omitted Rights Holders assert that they were not provided the statutorily required notice and so did not file answers to become parties to this action.
On October 30, 2024, the Mahan Ranch Defendants filed opposition to the Balcom Defendants’ motion to modify or amend the Judgment. The Mahan Ranch Defendants argue that the appeal deprives the court of jurisdiction to rule on the motions.
Also on October 30, 2024, FCGMA filed a response to the motions to modify or amend the Judgment and for leave to intervene limited to explaining its limited authority relative to the establishment of legal rights to groundwater.
On November 15, 2024, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions to modify or amend the Judgment and for leave to intervene arguing that notice was legally sufficient, that the moving parties’ evidence is insufficient, and that the motions are otherwise without merit. Also on November 15, the Las Posas Farming Group filed its opposition to the motions emphasizing certain points in plaintiffs’ opposition. The Las Posas Farming Group also suggesting that if the court is inclined to consider the moving parties’ arguments, the court should allow discovery and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the notice issues.
Also on November 15, 2024, the Balcom Defendants filed their motion to bifurcate. The motion requests that, if the court determines that the appeal precludes modifying the Judgment at this time, the court should first rule on the threshold notice issue as a collateral matter not stayed by the appeal. The Balcom Defendants also state that the Omitted Rights Holders would join in such motion, but because the court has not ruled on the motion to intervene, those parties are not now parties to this proceeding.
On December 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to bifurcate.
The motion of defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) to disqualify counsel is discussed separately below.
Analysis
- Disqualification Motion
On September 26, 2024, defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) filed its motion to disqualify Nossaman LLP (Nossaman) as counsel for numerous landowner parties in this action based upon an asserted conflict of interest. The motion was originally set for hearing on November 13, 2024.
On October 31, 2024, Nossaman filed a “Statement of Qualified Non-Opposition” to this motion. While asserting that Nossaman has at all times complied with its ethical obligations, Nossaman advised its clients and the court of its willingness to withdraw from the representation of its current clients. The Statement requested that the court defer ruling on the motion until January 10, 2025, to allow these clients to find replacement counsel.
On November 13, 2024, the court continued the hearing on this motion to this hearing date of December 18, noting that if before the hearing there had been a substitution of counsel filed, the motion would go off calendar.
As of now, no substitution of counsel has been filed. Nossaman also has not filed any opposition to this motion. The court will therefore grant the motion to disqualify for the reasons set forth in the motion.
- Motion to Intervene
“The court shall allow any person to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication conducted pursuant to this chapter upon an ex parte application that demonstrates that the person holds fee simple ownership in a parcel in the basin, or extracts or stores water in the basin. A person filing an ex parte application pursuant to this subdivision shall give notice to the plaintiff consistent with the California Rules of Court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 837, subd. (c).)
“A person may apply to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication conducted pursuant to this chapter pursuant to Section 387.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 837, subd. (d).)
The Omitted Rights Holders move to intervene in order to have standing to assert their water right claims. The court notes that, as quoted above, section 9.4 of the Judgment expressly permits “landowners, or other persons claiming the right to Extract Groundwater from the Basin,” other than Parties, to make a motion to modify or amend the Judgment in the “interests of justice.” The Omitted Rights Holders assert such claims. This provision is consistent with section 837, subdivision (c). It is therefore appropriate to formally permit the Omitted Rights Holders status as a Party so that their claims may be addressed in a procedurally appropriate manner. The motion to intervene will be granted. Proceedings on the complaint in intervention are subject to the discussion below.
- Motion to Amend or Modify
As noted by the court in ruling on previous motions, this Court has no jurisdiction to amend the Judgment while an appeal of the Judgment is pending. (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].)” It is clear that the requested amendments are not collateral to the Judgment. Consequently, the court will not now address the merits of the motion to amend or modify as to merits of the claims of either the Balcom Defendants or the Omitted Rights Holders, except as discussed below.
- Motion to Bifurcate
Anticipating that the court would find a present lack of jurisdiction to modify or amend the Judgment, the Balcom Defendants move to bifurcate the claims asserted in their motion to address the issues of notice first, that is, that the asserted failure to provide adequate notice is a sufficient basis to entertain the Balcom Defendants’ and the Omitted Rights Holders’ arguments to modify the Judgment, and then, if a sufficient basis is found, to later address their substantive claims relating to water rights.
Plaintiffs procedurally argue that two of the three statutes upon which the Balcom Defendants’ rest their motion, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1048 and 598, are applicable to trial only and are not applicable.
“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)
“The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5. The Court, on it own motion, may make such an order at any time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)
Sections 598 and 1048 are not directly applicable insofar as those sections apply to “trial” and no “trial” is now contemplated since the court has completed trial on the merits and the Judgment is on appeal. What is before the court now are claims by both the Balcom Defendants and the Omitted Rights Holders that each of them hold water rights that have been prejudiced by the Judgment that was entered without their participation. This is a post-judgment proceeding contemplated by section 9.4 of the Judgment.
Although it is true that the court has made findings that all affected right-holders have been given statutorily sufficient notice and have had an adequate opportunity to participate in these proceedings, such findings were made without the participation of the Balcom Defendants or the Omitted Rights Holders. To protect their constitutional and statutory rights, it is appropriate for these parties to have the opportunity to make a factual showing that these findings are erroneous and legally should not apply to them. Moreover, a resolution of the notice issues does not amend or modify the Judgment, but is only a threshold standing issue for determination of whether, or to what extent, the Judgment should be modified to accommodate these parties’ claims if any are found to have merit.
At the same time, the court is mindful that there is a strong policy in the finality of judgments. The other parties to this proceeding expended substantial effort, energy, and resources to reach the disposition embodied in the Judgment. That should not be disturbed absent appropriately strong grounds to do so. To balance these interests, the court must permit all parties to assert their respective interests fully and fairly. To accomplish this, the other parties to this proceeding must be permitted to investigate and to contest the factual assertions of the Balcom Defendants and the Omitted Rights Holders. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [discovery includes matter relevant to determination of a motion].) Once preparatory matters are complete (which the court contemplates as efficient and brief), the notice issues would be most efficiently resolved by an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, the court will order an evidentiary hearing on the notice issues. The court will discuss scheduling at the hearing of these matters.
Except as to the discovery and other matters necessary for the evidentiary hearing and the evidentiary hearing itself, all proceeding with respect to the motion to amend or to modify the Judgment and all proceedings with respect to the complaint in intervention of the Omitted Rights Holders are stayed pending the disposition of the appeal of the Judgment and further order of the court.