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

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 12/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Reconsideration; Motion to Amend Phase 1 SOD

Tentative Ruling

The City of Camarillo’s Motion to Reconsider and Amended Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Phase 1 Statement of Decision dated 10/23/2025 are denied.

Findings:

The City of Camarillo has filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Amended Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Phase 1 Statement of Decision dated 10/23/2025.  The Court has reviewed the motion and amended motion as well as the various oppositions filed by other parties, the objections to the declaration of Holly J. Jacobson filed in support of Camarillo’s motion and the Omnibus Reply of the City of Camarillo.

(1)       Jurisdiction

The Court has received a courtesy copy of a Notice of Appeal, dated December 16, 2025, in which defendant City of Camarillo purports to appeal from the Court’s Phase 1 Statement of Decision, filed October 23, 2025. The notice of appeal provides by attachment a statement that the appeal is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 840, subdivision (b)(6), and by a statement in the Statement of Decision that “No party may seek to relitigate the four yield numbers agreed to above, unless they can meet the standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 852 ….”

The filing of this notice of appeal raises an issue as to this Court’s jurisdiction pending disposition of the appeal by the Court of Appeal. In general, an appeal of a judgment removes a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to continue to entertain a reconsideration motion. (Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 53.)

However, “[t]he automatic stay, when it applies, arises upon a ‘duly perfected’ appeal.” (Hearn Pacific Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 117, 146.) An invalid appeal does not affect the trial court’s jurisdiction to proceed. (Ibid.)

The Court’s Statement of Decision reflects its findings and conclusions in phase 1 of a multi-phase trial. Except in certain statutory circumstances, the “one final judgment rule” precludes appeals from interlocutory judgments, including judgments rendered in an early phase of a bifurcated trial. (Baker v. Castaldi (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 218, 226; Plaza Tulare v. Tradewell Stores, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 522, 524.) None of the statutory exceptions of Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 apply here; there is no express exception allowing an appeal in section 850 (governing entry of judgment in comprehensive groundwater action).

City of Camarillo asserts that the Statement of Decision is an appealable judgment because the Court issued orders under section 840, subdivision (b)(6): “In an initial case management conference, or as soon as practicable, the court may consider the following in addition to other matters: [¶] … [¶] (6) Issuing orders to ensure that issues resolved in one phase are not relitigated in another phase.”

Trial court orders ensuring that one phase is not relitigated in another phase do not make the decision in the first phase a final judgment under the “one final judgment rule.” “A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties.” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com’n (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 697.) “ ‘As a general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in the nature of judicial action on the part of the court is essential to a final determination of the rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 698-699.) The Phase 1 decision does not finally determine all of the rights of City of Camarillo at issue in this comprehensive groundwater adjudication. The Phase 1 Statement of Decision is not a final judgment and hence not an appealable judgment. The notice of appeal is therefore not valid and does not remove jurisdiction from this Court to proceed.

The groundwater adjudication statutes are intended, among other things, to conduct “a comprehensive adjudication in a manner that promotes efficiency, reduces unnecessary delays, and provides due process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 830, subd. (b)(2).) Section 840, subdivision (b)(5) expressly identifies dividing the case into phases to resolve legal and factual issues as a matter to consider for the efficient disposition of a comprehensive groundwater adjudication. If a decision in one phase of such a trial were separately appealable (and so stayed the trial court’s jurisdiction), interlocutory appeals would defeat rather promote efficient disposition of groundwater adjudications.

Because the Court finds that the notice of appeal in this case does not “duly perfect” an appeal, this Court retains jurisdiction to address the matters now before it.

(2) Motion for Reconsideration

Preliminarily, the Court sustains the objections to the declaration of Holly J. Jacobson as inadmissible hearsay and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1008 (a) and 352.

The Court finds that the City of Camarillo’s motion for reconsideration and amended motion for reconsideration are not well taken. It is procedurally improper.  Camarillo disregarded this Court’s mandate concerning Code of Civil Procedure section 852.  Camarillo also improperly requested reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  There are no new or different facts, circumstances or law.  The motion is in essence an improper, deficient motion for a new trial governed and by Code of Civil Procedure section 657 premised on inadmissible hearsay, unauthenticated documents and alleged post-trial statements by United Water Conservation District’s expert witness, Dr. Jason Sun.

The Court has already heard and considered all relevant testimony concerning groundwater models.

The City of Camarillo has failed to demonstrate it was prevented from discovering purported “new facts.”  The Court is cognizant that the City of Camarillo did not propound written discovery to United Water, did not question Dr. Sun at his fact deposition, failed to depose Dr. Sun during expert discovery and failed to ask Dr. Sun questions about updates at trial. All experts have agreed that the model disclosed by United Water is adequate.  Moreover, any model updates reference by Dr. Sun are not likely to produce a different result.  Sherman v Kinetic Concepts Inc, (1998), 67 Cal.App.4^th 1152, 1161.