OPV Coalition et al vs Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/05/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Stay

Tentative Ruling

(1)       For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiffs OPV Coalition, et al. (OPV Coalition) to stay litigation as to all claims other than the groundwater adjudication and quiet title claims (the first and second causes of action plaintiffs’ first amended complaint) is granted. Pending disposition of these adjudication and quiet title claims or further order of the court, litigation of all other claims is stayed. Any demurer to the FAC as to these claims may be filed and set for hearing after the stay is lifted.

(2)       On the court’s own motion, the November 29, 2023, Further Case Management Order is vacated. The parties are ordered to meet and confer as to a new case management conference order consistent with the guidelines set forth herein and the court’s October 6, 2023, order, and to lodge (and file attached to a notice of lodging) a new proposed case management order at least 10 court days in advance of the February 9, 2024, case management conference, which will be held at 3:00 p.m. in this department. Judicial Council case management conference statements are not required for any party filing (including jointly or by joinder) a statement in support of or in response to a proposed case management order. The court confirms that its order of November 8, 2023, remains in effect. The court adopts as its orders the agreed-upon provisions set forth as exhibit A to the plaintiffs’ motion to correct the November 29 CMO. In all other respects, the plaintiffs’ motion to correct is denied.

Background:

On June 15, 2021, plaintiffs OPV Coalition, et al. (OPV Coalition), filed their complaint for comprehensive groundwater adjudication of the Oxnard Groundwater Subbasin and the Pleasant Valley Groundwater Subbasin (collectively, Basins) in Ventura County Superior Court.

On December 12, 2022, plaintiffs filed their operative pleading, their first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC asserts six causes of action (counts): (1) declaratory relief/ request for comprehensive groundwater adjudication; (2) quiet title; (3) writ of mandate (October 2019 Allocation Ordinance); (4) writ of mandate (Groundwater Sustainability Plan—Oxnard Subbasin); (5) writ of mandate (Groundwater Sustainability Plan—Pleasant Valley); and (6) violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The first cause of action is brought against all defendants; the second cause of action is brought against all defendants except defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA); the third through sixth causes of action are brought against FCGMA only.

On September 29, 2021, the Ventura County Superior Court entered its order, pursuant to the Order of the Chief Justice of California as Chair of the Judicial Council, transferring this action to the Santa Barbara County Superior Court.

On October 6, 2023, the court held a case management conference and, among other things, ordered that the parties meet and confer and propose a case management order that would include, where practicable, procedures for resolving disputes among the parties. The proposed order would be lodged with the court at least 10 court days before the hearing, and objections and responses would be filed at least five court days before the hearing.

On November 7, 2023, plaintiffs filed their ex parte application to extend the appearance and initial disclosure deadlines. On November 8, the court entered its order granting the ex parte application extending the deadlines for all parties to appear in this action to April 1, 2024 (from January 31, 2024), and for initial disclosures under Code of Civil Procedure section 842 to May 1, 2024 (from February 29, 2024).

On November 14, 2023, the City of Oxnard (Oxnard), FCGMA, Oxnard Union High School District, Rio School District, Vineyard Mutual Water Company, OPV Coalition, Marathon Land, Inc. (Marathon Land), Camrosa Water District, the United States of America (US), Archdiocese of Los Angeles, The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education & Welfare Corp., St. John’s Seminary, City of San Buenaventura, and Calleguas Municipal Water District filed a joint status report stating that the parties had engaged in productive meet and confer discussions regarding the Public Agencies’ Proposed Provisions regarding Proof of Service and the Deadline to Appear, as set forth in paragraphs two through seven of the [Proposed] Case Management Order. These parties requested that the court defer making an order on these issues until a future case management order with the expectation that additional meet and confer efforts would resolve or narrow remaining issues.

Also in advance of the November 17, 2023, case management conference, the parties lodged a proposed case management order and responses and objections. On November 17, 2023, the court held the next case management conference. The court considered the proposals, objections, and responses, and took the matter under submission.

On November 29, 2023, the court issued its Further Case Management Conference Order (November 29 CMO).

On November 30, 2023, plaintiffs filed their motion to stay the third through sixth causes of action pending adjudication of the comprehensive groundwater adjudication claims (causes of action 1 and 2). Whether a stay is or is not granted will affect a proposed February 9, 2024, hearing date on FCGMA’s demurrer.

On December 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed their motion “to correct clerical mistakes” in the November 29 CMO. Plaintiffs identify three categories of mistakes: (a) not accounting for the extension of the appearance deadline from January 31, 2024, to April 1, 2024, as provided in the court’s November 8 order; (b) adopting provisions that were withdrawn by the parties proposing them to allow resolution through further negotiation; and (c) not adopting the parties’ agreed-upon provisions. The motion seeks orders: (i) vacating the November 29 CMO; (ii) accounting for the extended appearance deadline; (iii) refraining from ruling on withdrawn or superseded proposals; and (iv) adopting the parties’ agreed-upon provisions.

On December 6, 2023, plaintiffs filed their related ex parte application to correct service-related deadlines in the November 29 CMO. To address the issue of conflicting and impending dates in the November 29 CMO, plaintiffs requested, and on December 13, the court ordered, that pending resolution of plaintiffs’ motion, that all deadlines in paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 7, 11(b), and 11(c), of the November CMO are vacated, and that for purposes of the February 9, 2024, case management conference, the deadlines in paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) do not apply.

The motion to correct is opposed by FCGMA, United Water Conservation District (UWCD), Oxnard, and Marathon Land. The US has filed a response largely agreeing with the motion and noting that its position was in part based upon the representations to the court that some matters had been withdrawn from present consideration pending further meet and confer efforts.

The motion to stay is opposed by FCGMA.

Analysis:

(1)       Motion to Stay

            (A)       Requests for Judicial Notice

In support of the motion to stay, plaintiffs request that the court take judicial notice of: (Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice, exhibit A) FCGMA’s motion to lift a stay dated December 7, 2021, in Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, Santa Barbara Superior Court case number 20CV02036 (Las Posas Action); (exhibit B) the Las Posas Action court’s ruling on the motion to lift the stay, dated January 18, 2022; (exhibit C) the final judgment entered in the Las Posas Action on July 10, 2023; (exhibit D) FCGMA’s motion in the Las Posas Action to prevent unlawful interference pursuant to Water Code section 10737.2, dated November 18, 2019; (exhibit E) the petition of FCGMA and others for writ of mandate and for emergency stay in Calleguas Municipal Water District, et al., v. Superior Court, Court of Appeal case number B323418, dated September 22, 2022; (exhibit F) the motion of FCGMA to confirm stay pending appeal in the Las Posas Action, dated August 10, 2023; (exhibit G) FCGWA’s petition for writ of supersedeas and immediate stay in Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency v. Superior Court, Court of Appeal case number B330837; and (exhibit H) the minute order, filed April 8, 2021, in the Las Posas Action staying writ proceedings in that action until further resolution of groundwater adjudication issues.

While court records may be the subject of a request for judicial notice (Evid. Code, § 352, subd. (d)(1)), “only relevant material may be noticed. ‘But judicial notice, since it is a substitute for proof [citation], is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand.’ [Citation.]” (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.) The fact that the court in the Las Posas Action, which was decided and is pending for post-judgment matters in a different department of this court, granted a stay under similar circumstances is not relevant here. This court determines these issues based upon the facts and circumstances of this case on the record before it. The fact that FCGMA may have made similar, unsuccessful arguments in another case is irrelevant to whether a stay is appropriate in this case. These requests for judicial notice will therefore be denied.

In opposition to the motion to stay, FCGMA requests that the court take judicial notice of: (FCGMA Request for Judicial Notice, exhibit A) the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) letter of approval for the Oxnard Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP), prepared and adopted by FCGMA, including attached Statement of Findings and GSP Assessment Staff Report, dated November 18, 2021; (exhibit B) DWR’s letter of approval for the Pleasant Valley Subbasin GSP), prepared and adopted by FCGMA, including attached Statement of Findings and GSP Assessment Staff Report, dated November 18, 2021; (exhibit C) “An Ordinance to Establish an Allocation System for the Oxnard and Pleasant Valley Groundwater Basins,” adopted by FCGMA on October 23, 2019; and (exhibit D) the Fox Canyon Staff Report to Fox Canyon Board of Directors regarding Resolution 2019-05 adopting GSPs for the Las Posas Valley Basin, Oxnard Subbasin, and Pleasant Valley Basin, dated December 13, 2019.

Plaintiffs partially object to these requests for judicial notice. While plaintiffs do not object to the court taking judicial notice of the existence of these documents (see Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c)), plaintiffs object to the court taking judicial notice of the truth of the matter stated in those documents.

“ ‘Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.’ [Citation.] While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein. [Citation.] ‘When judicial notice is taken of a document, ... the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.’ [Citation.]” (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.)

The court will therefore grant these requests for judicial notice. Judicial notice extends to the content of the documents, e.g., that the DWR letters or staff reports contain statements made by their respective authors, but not to the truth of those statements.

In reply, plaintiffs request that the court take judicial notice of: (Plaintiffs’ Reply Request for Judicial Notice, exhibit A) the Findings and Orders After Hearing, Final Decisions, dated December 17, 2019, in the Las Posas Action; (exhibit B) FCGMA’s Notice of Meeting and Board Meeting Agenda for February 28, 2018; (exhibit C) FCGMA’s Notice of Meeting and Board Meeting Agenda for March 28, 2018; (exhibit D) FCGMA’s Notice of Meeting and Board Meeting Agenda for October 24, 2018; (exhibit E) FCGMA’s Notice of Meeting and Board Meeting Agenda for June 26, 2019; and (exhibit F) the Final Statement of Decision and Judgment in the Las Posas Action.

For the same reasons set forth above, plaintiffs’ requests are denied as to exhibits A and F. As with FCGMA’s requests, the court will grant the requests as to exhibits B through E.

            (B)       Stay

Plaintiffs’ FAC contains two causes of action involving a comprehensive groundwater adjudication (the Adjudication Claims, causes of action 1 and 2). The FAC also contains four causes of action specifically against FCGMA (causes of action 3, 4, 5, and 6), which challenge the October 2019 Allocation Ordinance and the two GSPs. The motion seeks to stay all of the claims other than the Adjudication Claims until resolution of the Adjudication Claims. FCGMA does not oppose staying the third and sixth causes of action pending resolution of the Adjudication Claims. (FCGMA Opposition, at p. 6, fn. 1.) FCGMA opposes staying the two causes of action challenging the two GSPs (the Writ Claims, cause of action 4 and 5).

“It is … well established that courts have fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation before them. [Citation.] ‘In addition to their inherent equitable power derived from the historic power of equity courts, all courts have inherent supervisory or administrative powers which enable them to carry out their duties, and which exist apart from any statutory authority. [Citations.] “It is beyond dispute that ‘Courts have inherent power ... to adopt any suitable method of practice, both in ordinary actions and special proceedings, if the procedure is not specified by statute or by rules adopted by the Judicial Council.’ [Citation.]” [Citation.] That inherent power entitles trial courts to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected with pending litigation ... in order to insure the orderly administration of justice. [Citation.] “Courts are not powerless to formulate rules of procedure where justice demands it.” [Citation.] The Legislature has also recognized the authority of courts to manage their proceedings and to adopt suitable methods of practice. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128, 187.)’ [Citation.]” (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967.)

In the specific context of a comprehensive adjudication, the court is tasked with “[c]onducting a comprehensive adjudication in a manner that promotes efficiency, reduces unnecessary delays, and provides due process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 830, subd. (b)(2).) The court has specific statutory authority to divide the case into phases to resolve legal and factual issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 840, subd. (b)(5).)

As all parties point out, this matter is in its beginning stages. FCGMA argues that is should be permitted to file and to have heard its demurrer to Writ Claims and, in any event, disposition of the Writ Claims—with deference to FCGMA’s determinations—will simplify if not resolve issues in the Adjudication Claims.

The court finds that the most efficient approach to this litigation is to stay the Writ Claims pending resolution of the Adjudication Claims. Factual and legal issues underlying the Adjudication Claims have significant implications to the Writ Claims. Resolution of the Adjudication Claims will provide a basis for a physical solution which is consistent with both the rights of the parties and responsible management of the basins. (See Wat. Code, §§ 10737.2, 10737.4; Code Civ. Proc., § 849.) To the extent that there are interim issues, the court may make orders as necessary to avoid prejudice and to address all issues efficiently and consistent with the constitutional and statutory responsibilities of the court and the parties.

Having considered the admissible evidence and arguments of the parties, the court finds that a stay of all claims other than the Adjudication Claims promotes efficiency, avoids redundancy and unnecessary costs, and is in the best interest of justice. The motion to stay will therefore be granted.

(2)       Motion to Correct November 29 CMO

This motion is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), on the grounds that the November 29 CMO contains clerical errors. FCGMA argues in opposition that section 473 is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging the November 29 CMO and that it should have been brought as a motion for reconsideration. Similarly, UWCD argues that at most, the errors of which plaintiffs complain constitute judicial errors rather than clerical errors and the motion cannot be used to challenge judicial errors. Oxnard and Marathon Land do not oppose the motion to modify dates as ordered prior to the November 29 CMO, but otherwise argue that there is no procedural basis for the relief sought.

Whether or not section 473 is itself the correct procedural vehicle to address these issues, as noted above, the court has inherent authority to control litigation before it, including authority to reconsider and revise its interim orders. (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107; Boschetti v. Pacific Bay Investments Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1059, 1070.) Based upon the court’s own review of its orders the court concludes that the November 29 CMO contains unintended and erroneous provisions. The court will under its own authority vacate the November 29 CMO and provide the following guidance to the parties:

The court seeks to encourage agreement among the parties, particularly with respect to procedural matters. The parties will be ordered to meet and confer as to all matters involving case management. The court will adopt the agreed-upon provisions set forth in exhibit A to the motion. The court will not now adopt those provisions which were withdrawn by the parties (paragraphs 2 through 7 of the November 29 CMO) to allow the parties to continue their meet and confer discussions; the inclusion of the provisions of paragraphs 2 through 7 in the November 29 CMO should not be construed as the court taking a position as to how these matters should be addressed in the replacement CMO. The court confirms that the deadlines set forth in the court’s November 8, 2023, order remains in force.

As previously stated by the court, the CMO should provide a procedural framework for both the litigation and for resolving procedural disputes among the parties. The CMO needs to state what is expected of the parties by way of deadlines and procedural steps. Procedural deadlines should be firm, but they also should not be the source of gamesmanship. The court recognizes that not everything goes as hoped or as anticipated. The parties need to be forthright in identifying problems with meeting deadlines so that those issues can be addressed with a minimum of prejudice to other parties or to the court. Importantly, the regular case management conferences should be used to address these problems so that ex parte applications are left to situations of actual necessity. (For example, the multiple ex parte applications contributed to the confusion in the November 29 CMO.)

Court resources are scarce. The court needs as much lead time to address weighty disputes as is practicable—hence the court’s preference for greater opportunities for the parties to meet and confer and for presentation of the disputes to the court. Complex discrete issues may, and sometimes should, be briefed separately but concurrently, i.e., in the manner of a noticed motion with specific language to be added to, deleted from, or amended in the then-existing CMO.

Paragraph 9 of the November CMO is, on reflection, premature. Apart from issues that the court has determined to stay for the present, the phasing of trial of the Adjudication Claims needs to be determined after all parties have appeared in the action so as to give all affected parties an opportunity for input. This reflection should not be construed as favoring or disfavoring currently proposed phasing.

Each proposed CMO for a specific CMC should be in a format separated into three sections. In section one, there should be a set of orders relating to deadlines, duties, etc., that have previously been ordered by the court. In section two, there should be a set of proposals for additions, deletions, or amendments to the section one orders. Section one orders proposed to be affected by section two proposals should be highlighted and cross-referenced. In section three, there should be a list of issues that are outstanding to be included in a future CMO but for which there are no section two proposals. These issues should include the parties’ expectations as to when, and procedurally how, those issues will be addressed. In this way section two functions as an agenda for the CMC in the adoption of agreed-upon terms and in the resolution of current disputes; section three functions as an agenda for setting (or deferring) a timetable for addressing new issues. Following the CMC, one party—with the concurrence of the other parties—should prepare a clean CMO (identified to the CMC hearing date and containing only the cumulative orders of the court) for the court’s signature.

The parties should also note that there has been difficulty in making certain that proposed orders in the form in which they are proposed get included in the court’s public record so that any disputes over past proposals are easily referenced. When a party lodges a proposed CMO with the court, that party must also concurrently file a notice of lodging with the proposed CMO attached as an exhibit.