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, 02/26/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants BMB, William A. Miller, Bert Boeckmann, Jane Boeckmann, and Mary Lou Paulson 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 Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants BMB, William A. Miller, Bert Boeckmann, Jane Boeckmann, and Mary Lou Paulson: Paul R. Minasian, Jackson A. Minasian, Minasian Law, 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 Defendants Leavens Ranches, LLC, et al. (Las Posas Farming Group): Matt Kline, Barton (Buzz) Thompson, Russell McGlothlin, Heather Welles, O’Melveny & Myers LLP

           

RULINGS

1. The Court grants the request to file a Sur-Reply and Joint Sur-Reply.
2. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiffs and cross-defendants BMB, a General Partnership, William A. Miller, Bert Boeckmann, Jane Boeckmann, and Mary Lou Paulson to amend the judgment entered in this matter is DENIED.

Background

As noted in previous rulings of the court, an appeal of the final judgment (Judgment) entered in this matter remains pending. (Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al., v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, et al. (B330837, app. pending).)

On December 17, 2024, plaintiffs, and cross-defendants BMB, a general partnership, William A. Miller, Bert Boeckmann, Jane Boeckmann, and Mary Lou Paulson (BMB Parties) filed this motion for modification and amendment of judgment pursuant to paragraph of the judgment.

On February 11, 2025, defendants Leavens Ranches, LLC, et al. (Las Posas Farming Group) filed its opposition to the motion of the BMB Parties. Also on February 11, defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA) filed a consolidated limited response clarifying its authority (and lack thereof) to determine legal rights to groundwater within the basin.

On February 20, 2025, Settling Parties filed a sur-reply [and a request to file it] to the Moving Parties’ reply in support of their motion to amend the Judgment, which asserts, for the first time, that Moving Parties never waived their opportunity to seek additional groundwater rights beyond those allocated as part of the adjudication. The request has been granted under the circumstances and the document has been read and considered.

Analysis

The motion of the BMB Parties is based on paragraph 9.4 of the Judgment, which provides:

“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.)

With respect to the procedural posture of this matter, the court has previously ruled in the context of motions to modify the Judgment made by parties who asserted claims based upon insufficient notice that the court is without jurisdiction to modify the Judgment while the appeal is pending. The BMB Parties do not present any argument in their motion as to the jurisdiction of the court to modify the Judgment while the appeal is pending.

The court also notes that the BMB Parties have not presented evidence or argument to show that the proposed amendment is based upon new information or changed circumstances, or to show that these arguments were not or could not have been raised in the litigation that led to the Judgment. As a general principle, the modification provisions of the Judgment are not intended to permit any party to argue matters that it did, or reasonably could have, argued in the litigation that led up to the Judgment. The strong policies in favor of finality of judgment requires, as expressly stated in section 9.4, a strong showing of good cause.

The Court’s Conclusions

The Motion should be denied.