OPV Coalition et al vs Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency et al

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 08/22/2025 - 15:00

Nature of Proceedings

(3) Motions for Leave to File; CMC; Motion to Require Unrepresented Entity Parties to Obtain Counsel

Tentative Ruling

On calendar for August 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., is plaintiffs’ motion to require unrepresented entity parties to obtain counsel. This motion, discussed below, will be heard at 3:00 p.m. with the case management conference and other motions.

On calendar for August 22, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., are: (1) motions of Rancho Avita LLC, and Plum Vista LP for leave to file answers to the second amended complaint (SAC); (2) Special Master’s Report No. 9; and (3) a case management conference.  

(1)       Recent Activity

As of this posting, the court’s file reflects that the following parties filed notices of their intent to participate in the phase 1 trial: (filed August 7) (i) Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency; (filed August 8) (ii) Marathon Land, Inc.; (iii) plaintiffs; (iv) CalPortland Company and CalMat Co. dba Vulcan Materials Company, Western Division; (v) Local Bounti Corporation, Store Master Holding XXXI LLC, Sun Valley Group, Inc. and Noel Daily as Trustee for the Daily Family Trust; (vi) City of San Buenaventura and Calleguas Municipal Water District; (vii) Springville Lemon Ranch, LLC, et al.; (viii) Archdiocese of Los Angeles, et al.; (ix) United Water Conservation District; (x) Pleasant Valley County Water District, et al., (xi) Oxnard Union High School District, et al.; (xii) California-American Water Company; and (xiii) City of Camarillo.

As of this posting, the court’s file reflects that the following parties filed notices of their intent NOT to participate in the phase 1 trial: (filed August 7) (i) PAI Lucky Charm Farm LLC; (ii) Arnold H. Meyerstein Jr., Trustee, Meyerstein Family Trust Dated 6/10/1993; (iii) Asellus Legume, LLC; (filed August 8) (iv) Bonnie Plants, LLC; (v) HNS Properties, LLC; (vi) A&R 1995, LLC, et al.; (vii) Simon Property Group, Inc., and Premium Outlet Partners LP; (viii) Alta Mutual Water Company; (filed August 11) (ix) Ocean View School District; and (filed August 18) (x) Southland Property Investments, LLC.

(2)       Motion to Require Unrepresented Entity Parties to Obtain Counsel

On July 29, 2025, plaintiffs filed their motion to require unrepresented entity parties to obtain counsel.

“A corporation has the capacity to bring a lawsuit because it has all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business. [Citation.] However, under a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.)

The same rule applies to all entity defendants, including limited liability companies (Prato v. Gioia (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 651, 662) and a trustee representing a trust for which the trustee is not also the sole trustee, settlor, and beneficiary (Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1519–1520; Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 548).

Plaintiffs request that the court order all unrepresented non-natural persons, entities, or trusts (other than a sole trustee who is also the sole beneficiary and settlor of a revocable trust), to obtain counsel in order to appear in this action. The motion is not opposed and no party has otherwise filed any response.

The court will grant the motion. Each unrepresented entity must obtain counsel, and such counsel must enter an appearance as counsel of record, on or before September 15, 2025. Any entity that does not have counsel of record as of September 15, 2025, (i) will be precluded from participation in the phase 1 trial, (ii) will be precluded from further participation in this proceeding until counsel is obtained and appears, (iii) will be deemed to have determined not to participate in this proceeding, and (iv) will be bound by any orders, rulings, or judgments made by the court.

(3)       Motions to File Answers

On July 23, 2025, defendant Rancho Avita, LLC, filed its motion for leave to file an answer to the SAC. Also on July 23, defendant Plum Vista, LP, filed its motion for leave to file an answer to the SAC. No oppositions or other responses have been filed to either of these motions.

The motions of Rancho Avita, LLC, and Plum Vista, LP, will be granted. All such answers shall be filed and served on or before August 29, 2025.

(4)       Special Master’s Report No. 9 re Expansion of Authority

On August 7, 2025, plaintiffs filed notice of the Special Master’s Report No. 9. Report No. 9 is a response to various parties’ requests that the special master be authorized to retain and work with a consulting firm to organize information disclosed by the parties. Specifically, Special Master Mitchell Beckloff recommends that the court grant the motion (attached to the notice of Report No. 9 as exhibit 4) as follows:

“The Court grant the motion as proposed except for the penultimate sentence in paragraph 1 which should be stricken: ‘The database should also be capable of being updated to include, where necessary, other data that all parties might be ordered in the future to produce (such as irrigated acreage and crop data).’

“The Court order that when retaining the third-party consultant, the special master consider with all other relevant considerations (i.e., cost, timing) whether the consultant will have the capability to supplement the initial data with other data as the case proceeds.

“The Court order any party who wishes to submit a proposed consulting firm for the special master to consider for this work do so within five court days of the Court’s order.” (Report No. 9, at p. 5.)

The special master also reports that no objections to this report were voiced at the hearing addressing this motion. (Report No. 9, at p. 1.)

Absent objection, the court will adopt the recommendations of Report No. 9 as orders of the court. Plaintiffs shall lodge a revised proposed order for the court to enter reflecting this ruling.

(5)       Case Management Conference Issues

No other matters have been brought to the court’s attention for this case management conference. The court expects the parties to report on status, and in particular what effect, if any, settlement activity may have on the upcoming phase 1 trial.

Additionally, there are no other case management conferences now scheduled between now and the commencement of phase 1 trial on September 15. The court is considering scheduling a further CMC on September 5.