Preview
PACHOWICZ|GOLDENRING
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION COUNTY of SANTA BARBARA
2 PETER A. GOLDENRING (Bar No. 79387)
peter@gopro-law.com 04/22/2022
3 6050 Seahawk Street Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
Ventura, California 93003 BY Baksh, NarzralIi
4 805.642.6702 Deputy Clerk
Telephone:
Facsimile: 805.642.3145
56789
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
KEVIN M. O’BRIEN (Bar No. 122713)
kobrien@downeybrand.com
MEREDITH E. NIKKEL (Bar No. 254818)
mnikkel@downeybrand.com
KELLY M. BREEN (Bar No. 267715)
kbreen@downeybrand.com
BRIAN E. HAMILTON (Bar No. 295 994)
bhamilton@downeybrand.com
10 HOLLY E. TOKAR (Bar No. 334288)
htokar@downeybrand.com
11 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, California 95 814
12 Telephone: 916.444.1000
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
Facsimile: 916.444.2100
13
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff LAS
14 POSAS BASIN WATER RIGHTS COALITION
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
17 LAS POSAS BASIN WATER RIGHTS Case No. 21CVO3714
COALITION, an unincorporated association,
18 Related Case Nos. VENC10050970;
Petitioner and Plaintiff, 20CV02036
19
V. Assignedfor all purposes t0 the Honorable
20 Thomas P. Anderle, Dept. 3
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER
21 MANAGEMENT AGENCY, a public entity,
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
22 FCGMA and Defendant. STATEMENT
23 Date: May 6, 2022
DOES l-100, Time: 8:30 am
24 Judge: Hon. Thomas P. Anderle
Real Parties in Interest.
25
26
27
28
1803838v2
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.725, Petitioner Las Posas Basin Water Rights
2 Coalition (“Petitioner”) submits the following statement for consideration by the Court for the
3 May 6, 2021 Case Management Conference.
4 I. Status of Case and Related Proceedings
5 A. The Present Writ Action Challenging FCGMA’s Allocation Ordinance
6 Petitioner filed the instant action on September 17, 2021 (the “Allocation Writ Action”).
7 The Petition challenges the adoption by Respondent Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
8 Agency (“FCGMA”) of “An Ordinance to Establish an Extraction Allocation System for the Las
9 Posas Groundwater Basin” (the “Allocation Ordinance”) on December 14, 2020. The Allocation
10 Ordinance purports to limit the amount of water individual well owners may extract from the Las
11 Posas Basin. The Allocation Ordinance became operative on October 1, 2021. Petitioner and
12 FCGMA entered a tolling agreement on March 31, 2021, whereby the parties agreed that
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
13 Petitioner would not bring an action challenging the Allocation Ordinance from February 21, 2021
14 until August 15, 2021. FCGMA refused to enter a further tolling agreement following the
15 expiration of the original tolling agreement on August 15, 2021. Petitioner thereafter initiated the
16 Allocation Writ Action in order to preserve its claims against FCGMA. On December 7, 2021, the
17 parties filed a stipulation to continue the deadline for certification of the administrative record
18 until February 11, 2022. (Stipulation and Proposed Order re Administrative Record (Dec. 7,
19 2021), at 2.) On the same day, Petitioner filed a Request for Hearing pursuant to Public Resources
20 Code section 21167.4, requesting that the Court deter setting a hearing until after the parties have
21 had a chance to meet and confer regarding the status of the administrative record and appropriate
22 briefing and hearing schedule. (Request for Hearing (Dec. 7, 2021), at 2.) The parties have
23 entered into two additional stipulations to extend the deadline for certification of the
24 administrative record, and the current deadline to prepare the administrative record is June 13,
25 2022. (Third Stipulation and Proposed Order re Administrative Record (Apr. 12, 2022), at 2-3.)
26 B. The Comprehensive Adjudication
27 Meanwhile, the comprehensive groundwater adjudication of the Las Posas Groundwater
28 Basin is pending before the Court, Case No. VENCI00509700 (the “Comprehensive
1803838v2 2
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Adjudication”). Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Adjudication “will deal primarily with initial
2 individual allocation issues.” (CCMO (Dec. 11, 2020), ¶ 2(A).) “Phase 3 would deal primarily
3 with the adoption of a physical solution and the manner in that the physical solution will be
4 implemented and adaptively managed. This Phase will include resolution of the governance issue;
5 that is the intersection of the GMA’s and Court’s scope of authority.” (Id. at ¶ 2(B).) Trial for
6 Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Adjudication was scheduled to commence on January 19, 2022, but
7 on January 9, 2022, the Court of Appeal stayed the trial and related proceeding pending resolution
8 of an appeal to the Court’s order disqualifying counsel. (Case No. VENCI00509700, Temporary
9 Stay Order (January 11, 2022).)
10 C. The Writ Action to Challenge FCGMA’s GSP
11 Petitioner also filed a separate writ action to challenge FCGMA’s adoption of a
12 Groundwater Sustainability Plan (the “GSP Writ Action”), Case No. 20CV02036. The GSP Writ
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
13 Action has been stayed pending the resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication. FCGMA
14 resisted Petitioner’s efforts to relate the GSP Writ Action and the Comprehensive Adjudication
15 and stay the GSP Writ Action during the pending Comprehensive Adjudication. However, in its
16 order denying FCGMA’s motion to transfer the GSP Writ Action, the Court stated: “The [GSP]
17 Writ Action is fundamentally dependent upon the disposition of the Comprehensive Adjudication
18 as to particulars relevant to Fox Canyon’s management responsibilities.” (Case No. 20CV02036,
19 Order Denying Motion to Transfer (July 28, 2020), at 7.) On April 8, 2021, the Court stayed the
20 GSP Writ Action until further resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication. (Case No.
21 VENCI00509700, CCMCO (Apr. 8, 2021), at 1.) In its recent order denying FCGMA’s motion to
22 lift the stay of the GSP Writ Action, the Court stated: “As the Court has repeatedly indicated, the
23 Court will manage these two matters together to avoid conflicting rulings and to promote judicial
24 efficiency.” (Case No. 20CV02036, Order Denying Motion to Lift Stay (Jan. 18, 2022), at 1.)
25 II. The Allocation Writ Action Should Be Managed in Conjunction with the
Comprehensive Adjudication
26
A. There Is Good Cause to Continue Further Deadlines in the Allocation Writ
27 Action During the Pendency of the Comprehensive Adjudication
28 Like the GSP Writ Action, the Allocation Writ Action addresses questions that will be
1803838v2 3
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 addressed in the Comprehensive Adjudication. The cases involve common questions of fact and
2 law. The Allocation Writ Action includes claims that FCGMA abused its discretion in adopting
3 the Allocation Ordinance. The Allocation Writ Action also challenges the allocations adopted by
4 FCGMA based on faulty assumptions about the sustainable yield of the Las Posas Basin. These
5 issues will be at the forefront of the Comprehensive Adjudication in Phase 2 (regarding individual
6 groundwater allocations) and Phase 3 (regarding governance and a physical solution). Therefore,
7 pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.4, subdivision (c), good cause exists for not
8 setting a hearing date in the Allocation Writ Action until the conclusion of the Comprehensive
9 Adjudication.
10 In fact, there is also good cause to continue the deadline to prepare the administrative
11 record and set the hearing date in the Allocation Writ Action entirely. (See Pub. Resources Code,
12 § 21167.4, subd. (c).) First, there will be no prejudice to FCGMA in continuing the deadline to
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
13 prepare the administrative record and setting the hearing date in the Allocation Writ Action.
14 Progress on the Comprehensive Adjudication has been significant. The parties have already
15 resolved Phase 1 and a settlement involving individual landowners and mutual water companies
16 regarding individual allocations on Phase 2 issues is pending the Court’s approval. (Case No.
17 VENCI00509700, Supplemental Opposition to FCOP Motion in Limine, Ex. 1 [executed Phase 2
18 Settlement Agreement].) The Phase 2 trial was stayed on the eve of trial, following extensive
19 preparation by the parties. Resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication will resolve many of
20 the issues before the court in the Allocation Writ Action and will therefore potentially moot the
21 Allocation Writ Action or portions of it. The Allocation Ordinance itself reflects this likelihood
22 and states: “In the event the superior court comprehensively determines groundwater rights to the
23 Basin, it is the intent of the Board to amend this ordinance in a manner consistent with water right
24 priorities in any final judgment entered in the adjudication.” (Petition, Ex. A, Allocation
25 Ordinance, art. 2 (“Purpose”).) Accordingly, allowing the Allocation Writ Action to proceed at
26 this point would be an enormous waste of both the parties’ resources and the Court’s, for no
27 apparent gain, and proceeding would create the possibility of conflicting orders. Instead, any and
28 all issues that can be resolved in the Comprehensive Adjudication should be resolved in the
1803838v2 4
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Comprehensive Adjudication, and only then should the Court address any remaining issues left to
2 be addressed in the Allocation Writ Action.
3 B. The Court Should Deem the Cases Related
4 On April 8, 2022, Petitioner filed a Notice of Related Cases formally informing the Court,
5 FCGMA, and parties to the Comprehensive Adjudication that the Allocation Writ Action, the
6 Comprehensive Adjudication, and the GSP Writ Action are currently pending. Petitioner
7 inadvertently failed to file this Notice in September 17, 2021 when they initiated the Allocation
8 Writ Action. But this inadvertence has not resulted in any “waiver” as asserted by FCGMAs in
9 their April 15, 2022 response to Petitioner’s Notice of Related Cases. As set forth herein, the
10 factors for deeming cases related still apply the same here as they did in September 2021. (Cal.
11 Rules of Court, rule 3.300.) The facts supporting a determination that the cases are related have
12 not changed since September 2021. FCGMA has not been prejudiced by Petitioner’s late filing
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
13 because the Allocation Writ Action was assigned to the same judge as the Comprehensive
14 Adjudication notwithstanding the late filing.
15 FCGMA argues in its Response and Objection to Notice of Related Cases that the
16 Allocation Writ Action should proceed because CEQA actions are given “preference over all other
17 civil actions.” (Response, at 4.) This echoes FCGMA’s argument in the GSP Writ Action that
18 Petitioner’s Reverse Validation claim is entitled to statutory preference under Code of Civil
19 Procedure section 867, which the Court summarily rejected. (See Case No. VENCI00509700,
20 CCMO (Jan. Apr. 8, 2021), at 1.) The Court should also summarily reject FCGMA’s argument
21 that the collateral CEQA matter should proceed based on a claim of statutory preference pursuant
22 to Public Resources Code section 21167.1. The statutory preference for validation actions under
23 Code of Civil Procedure section 867 and CEQA actions under Public Resources Code section
24 21167.1 is the same. (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758,
25 847.) In another complex cases dealing with water rights and collateral CEQA issues the Court in
26 the Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases declined to afford “unjustified preference to the
27 adjudication of the CEQA actions.” (Ibid.) As explained above, it would not be justified to allow
28 the Allocation Writ Ordinance to take preference over this court’s determination of the allocation
1803838v2 5
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 of groundwater rights in the Comprehensive Adjudication.
2 III. COMPLIANCE WITH CRC 3.724
3 The parties have met and conferred pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.724 and
4 the Court’s case management order dated January 4, 2021. The Court issued the case management
5 order two weeks before the expected start of the Phase 2 trial in the Comprehensive Adjudication.
6 At the time, the Court and the parties anticipated that commencement of the Phase 2 trial was
7 imminent and expected the upcoming conference to be informed by the outcome of the Phase 2
8 trial. Now that the Phase 2 trial has been stayed pending appeal, Petitioner has raised its concern
9 to FCGMA that a hearing the merits of the Allocation Writ Action should not occur prior to
10 resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication. FCGMA has only agreed to stipulate to continue
11 the deadline to certify the administrative record until June 13, 2022. FCGMA has not agreed to
12 continue further deadlines in the Allocation Writ Action until resolution of the Comprehensive
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
13 Adjudication.
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15 Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Court continue the scheduling of a hearing and
16 deadline for preparation of the administrative record in the Allocation Writ Action until resolution
17 of issues in the Comprehensive Adjudication would be the most efficient manner to proceed.
18 DATED: April 21, 2022 DOWNEY BRAND LLP
19
20
By:
21 BRIAN E. HAMILTON
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff LAS POSAS
22 BASIN WATER RIGHTS COALITION
23
24
25
26
27
28
1803838v2 6
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
Case No. 21CV03714
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. My business address is 621 Capitol
Mall, 18th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814.
6
On April 21, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as CASE
7 MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on the interested parties in this action as
follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the
10 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address kscott@downeybrand.com to the persons at the e-mail
addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
11 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
foregoing is true and correct.
13
Executed on April 21, 2022, at Sacramento, California.
14
15
/s/ Karen Scott
16 Karen Scott
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1803838v2 7
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 SERVICE LIST
Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
2 Case No. 21CV03714 [Case No. VENCI00509700]
3
LeRoy Smith Elizabeth P. Ewens
4 Karen Marble Timothy Taylor
Jason Cangor Janeele S.H. Krattiger
5 COUNTY OF VENTURA Heraclio Pimentel
800 South Victoria Ave., L/C #1830 STOEL RIVES LLP
6 Ventura, CA 93009 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Karen.Marble@ventura.org Sacramento, CA 95814
7 Jason.Canger@ventura.org elizabeth.ewens@stoel.com
tim.taylor@stoel.com
8 Attorneys for Defendant Fox Canyon janelle.krattiger@stoel.com
Groundwater Management Agency heraclio.pimentel@stoel.com
9
Bruce Alan Finck
10 WOOD & FINCK
39 N. California Street
11 Ventura, CA 93001
bfinck@woodfinck.com
12
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Fox Canyon
13 Groundwater Management Agency
14 Steven R. Hagemann Theodore J. England
Francisco Corral FERGUSON CASE ORR PATERSON LLP
15 THE VENTURA LEGACY GROUP, APC 1050 South Kimball Road
1823 Knoll Drive Ventura, CA 93004
16 Ventura, CA 93003 tengland@fcoplaw.com
steve@venturalegacygroup.com
17 frank@venturalegacygroup.com Attorney for Defendants Sunshine Ranch, LLC
18 Attorneys for Defendants CULBERT FARMS,
LLC; MARIE KILDEE; DELCIA ANN
19 GIACALONE; JENNIFER ELIZABETH
KILDEE; RICHARD D. CULBERT; MICHAEL
20 KENNETH KILDEE; KEVIN BERTIS KILDEE;
SHARLEE C. CARNES; MEREDITH C.
21 HORTON; MICHAEL E. CULBERT; LAUREN
A. BORCHARD, TRUSTEE FOR THE LAB
22 TRUST; LESLIE K. BORCHARD; JAMES A.
WATERS III, TRUSTEE FOR THE J&H
23 REVOCABLE TRUST; JAMES A. WATERS III,
TRUSTEE FOR THE ANDREW EXEMPT
24 TRUST; JAMES D. ENGEL, TRUSTEE FOR
THE JAMES D. ENGEL AND KAY A. ENGEL
25 TRUST DATED APRIL 15, 1998
26
27
28
1803838v2 8
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Kevin G. Ennis Craig M. Lynch
CITY OF MOORPARK LYNCH & LYNCH
2 kennis@rwglaw.com P.O. Box 13515
Bakersfield, CA 93389-3515
3 James L. Markman clynch@lynchandlynchlawfirm.com
B. Tilden Kim
4 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Attorneys for Defendants Sharlee C. Carnes;
355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Meredith C. Horton; Michael E. Culbert
5 Los Angeles, CA 90071
6 Attorneys for City of Moorpark
7 Wesley A. Miliband Gregory J. Patterson
Andrew Donovan Foley MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
8 Kristopher T. Strouse 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & Westlake Village, CA 91361
9 ROMO g.patterson@musickpeeler.com
2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 300
10 Sacramento, CA 95833 Attorney for Crestview Mutual Water Company
Wes.Miliband@aalrr.com
11 Andrew.Foley@aalrr.com
Kristopher.Strouse@aalrr.com
12
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
Attorneys for Mesa Union School District
13
Peter L. Candy Wayne Keith Lemieux, Jr.
14 Thomas G. Thornton Steven O’Neill
HOLLISTER & BRACE, APC Alex Lemieux
15 1126 Santa Barbara Street ALSHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
P.O. Box 630 2659 Townsgate Road, Suite 226
16 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 Westlake Village, CA 91361
pcandy@hbsb.com klemieux@awattorneys.com
17 tgthornton@hbsb.com alemieux@awattorneys.com
soneill@awattorneys.com
18 Attorneys for Defendants Fuller Falls Mutual
Water Company; Saticoy Partners, LLC; Attorneys for Defendant Berylwood Heights
19 Starfire Ranch, LLC; Katherine Cannon and Mutual Water Company
Oliver Hutchinson; K-9, LLC; Guzman’s
20 Investments and Loans, Inc.; Harvest Ranch;
Flying H. Farms; Mustang Creek Ranch, LLC;
21 Penmeg, LLC; San Miguel Farms; Vista 11,
LLC; Josep J. Bilic Trust; GFO, LLC; Fremont
22 HGS, LLC; Vista Anacapa Family Farm, LLC;
Geraldine P. Berns Trust; Las Lomas Mutual
23 Water Company;
24
25
26
27
28
1803838v2 9
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Robert J. Saperstein Eric Garner
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER Christopher Pisano
2 SCHRECK, LLP Jeffrey V. Dunn
1021 Anacapa Street, Second Floor Patrick Skahan
3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Maya Mouawad
rsaperstein@bhfs.com BEST BEST KRIEGER LLP
4 300 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor
Attorneys for Wonderful Citrus, LLC; Lemon Los Angeles, CA 90071
5 500, LLC; eric.garner@bbklaw.com
christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com
6 Matt Kline jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com
Barton H. Thompson patrick.skahan@bbklaw.com
7 Russell M. McGlothlin maya.mouawad@bbklaw.com
Heather Welles
8 Katie Takajian Attorneys for Calleguas Municipal Water
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP District and the City of San Buenaventura
9 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
10 mkline@omm.com
bthompson@omm.com
11 rmcglothlin@omm.com
hwelles@omm.com
12 ktakakjian@omm.com
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
13 Attorneys for Mittag Ranches, and Mittag
Farms; Ann Broome Priske Trust; Elizabeth
14 Broome Grether Trust; John S. Broome, Jr.
Trust; and Survivor’s Administrative Trust
15 under the Grether Family Trust Dated
September 12, 1989; Seacoast Farms, LLC; JG
16 Leavens LLC; Leavens Ranches LLC; Sunshine
Agriculture, Inc.; John R. Milligan, Trustee of
17 the John R. Milligan Trust dated December 11,
1998; Richard H. Jones Limited Partnership, a
18 Colorado Limited Partnership; Lucy Milligan
Wahl and Claire Catherine Milligan, as
19 Successor Co-Trustees of the MCM Trust II,
dated December 14, 1990; Julia and Jim
20 Summers, Trustees of the Julia Summers 2013
Trust dated August 29, 2013; Susan C. Bravo,
21 as Trustee of the Susan C. Bravo Trust, dated
October 26, 1993; Carolyn Howarth, Trustee of
22 the John J. Pomatto Trust Two, created
January 2, 2012; Carolyn Howarth, Trustee of
23 the Wesley J. Pomotto Trust Two, created
January 2, 2012; Palmyre Lucie Lent, as
24 Trustee of the Palmyre Lucie Walsh Trust dated
September 10, 2001; Nicole K. Bravo, as
25 Trustee of the Nicole K. Bravo dated September
7, 2001; and Kimberly Jeanne Milligan, as
26 Trustee of the Kimberly J. Milligan Trust dated
May 16, 1995; Dos Amigos Trust; GST Exempt
27 Exemption Trust; Farmland Reserve, Inc.
28
1803838v2 10
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Gregory G. Diaz Robert A. Bailey
Miles P. Hogan LAGERLOF, LLP
2 CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 1100
501 Poli Street, Rm 213 Pasadena, CA 91101
3 Ventura, CA 93001 rbailey@lagerlof.com
gdiaz@cityofventura.ca.gov
4 mhogan@cityofventura.ca.gov Attorney for Thomas A. Kestly Family Trust
2003
5 Attorneys for City of San Buenaventura
6 Michael Van Zandt Edward Casey
Nathan A. Metcalf Gina Angiolillo
7 Sean G. Herman ALSTON & BIRD LLP
HANSON & BRIDGETT LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
8 425 Market Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
San Francisco, CA 94105 ed.casey@alston.com
9 mvanzandt@hansonbridgett.com gina.angiolillo@alston.com
nmetcalf@hansonbridgett.com
10 sherman@hansonbridgett.com Attorneys for Butler Ranch Mutual Water
Company; Shane L. Butler Family Growers
11 Attorneys for Defendants Ventura County LLC; Hypericum Land Company LLC;
Waterworks District No. 1; Ventura County Hypericum Interests, LLC
12 Waterworks District No. 19; and Ventura
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
County
13
Connie Allen Edward M. Hacobian
14 4450 Bradley Road 5951 Heatherton Drive
P.O. Box 321 Somis, CA 93066
15 Somis, CA 93006 Edward_hacobian@hotmail.com
16 In Pro Per In Pro Per
Via U.S. Mail
17
Robert C. Schnieders Joseph D. Hughes
18 Valerie Schnieders KLEIN, DeNATALE & GOLDNER
107 Apolena Avenue 10000 Stockdale Highway, Suite 200
19 Newport Beach, CA 92662 Bakersfield, CA 93311
nbccc1@gmail.com jhughes@kleinlaw.com
20
In Pro Per Attorneys for Defendant Zone Mutual Water
21 Company
22 Leroy Smith Leroy Smith
County Counsel County Counsel
23 Robert Orellana Eric Walts
Assistant County Counsel Assistant County Counsel
24 800 South Victoria Ave., L/C 1830 800 South Victoria Ave., #1830
Ventura, CA 93009 Ventura, CA 93009
25 Robert.orellana@ventura.org eric.walts@ventura.org
26 Attorney for Defendant Ventura County Fire Attorney for Defendant Ventura Watershed
Protection District Protection District
27
28
1803838v2 11
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Robert N. Kwong Robert A. Bailey
Susan L. McCarthy ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN,
2 ARNOLD LaROCHELLE MATHEWS CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP
VANCONAS & ZIRBEL LLP 301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1100
3 300 E. Esplande Drive, Suite 2100 Pasadena, CA 91101
Oxnard, CA 93036 rbailey@afrct.com
4 rkwong@atozlaw.com
smccarthy@atozlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Spirt Equestrian, LLC
5
Attorneys for James D. Hearn and Shira C.
6 Hearn; The Ronald and Nickoletta Partain
Family Trust; James A. Fitzgerald Trust No. II;
7 Gayl Family 1992 Trust; CE + D Mabry
Family LP; Ali Seyedi Revocable Trust dated
8 12/30/2019; Apricot Lane Farm Holdings,
LLC; JJM Somis Ranch, LLC; Benchmark
9 Partners Ag, LLC; Davidson Family Trust
dated 09/23/1992; Chris Marcussen; The
10 Newman Trust dated 01/27/2000; Lee Stoeckle
Living Trust dated 10/19/2009; Bell Ranch
11 Investors, LLC; Rancho Canada Water
Company LLC; Samuel and Sylvia Alvarez
12 Family Revocable Trust dated 02/20/1998;
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
Bryce and Elaine Bannatyne Trust; Robert Ann
13 Bianchi Trust dated 04/25/1988;April First
Trust dated 01/15/2001; Jose de Jesus and
14 Maria de la Cruz Gutierrez; Lowe Family Trust
dated 07/28/1996; Brian L. Moore Revocable
15 Trust dated 10/30/2009;Decedent’s Trust of the
Mueller Family Trust dated 05/04/1999;
16 Survivor’s Trust, under the O’Donnell Family
Trust dated 06/11/2003; Charles R. and
17 Kathleen M. Northcross Family Trust dated
05/27/2000; Bruecker 2005 Revocable Family
18 Trust; Elizabeth B. Grether Trust; Helen G.
Grether Trust
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1803838v2 12
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Richard Alan Baron, Trustee of the Richard Neal P. Maguire
Baron Revocable Trust DTD 12/17/15 James Q. McDermott
2 P.O. Box 25 Jessica Wan
Somis, CA 93066 FERGUSON CASE ORR & PATTERSON
3 rich101@me.com LLP
1050 S. Kimball Road
4 In Pro Per Ventura, CA 93004
nmaguire@fcoplaw.com
5 mcdermott@fcoplw.com
jwan@fcoplaw.com
6
Attorneys for Defendants Jane Donlon Water
7 and Marcia L. Donlon, Trustees of the David J.
Donlon Decendent’s Trust; Jane Donlon
8 Waters and Marcia L. Donlon Trustees of the
Marcia L. Donlon Survivor’s Trust; Las Nietas,
9 LLC; Donlon Ranch Somis; Epsworth Water
Group; Alton L. Jones; Gary M. Cusumano and
10 Diana L. Cusumano as Trustees, or the
Successor Trustee, Under the Gary M.
11 Cusumano and Diana L. Cusumano Family
Trust Dated May 30, 2002, Between Gary M.
12 Cusumano and Diana L. Cusumano Trustors
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
and as Trustees; Mahan Ranch LLC; Mahan
13 Development Corporation; Ralph D. Mahan,
Trustee of the Ralph D. Mahan Separate
14 Property Trust Dated June 12, 2003; Oro Del
Norte, LLC; Kathleen M. Stevens and Leon
15 Scott Stevens, Co-Trustees of the Leon O.
Stevens Trust Dated November 19, 1997;
16 Urban-D Ranch Limited Partnership; and VMB
Water System; RBV 2+5 LLC; RBV-Vanoni,
17 LLC; John A. McGonigle Trustee of the John A.
McGonigle Trust Dated October 7, 2010;
18 Kirschbaum, LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1803838v2 13
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
1 Robert G. Kuhs Balcom Canyon Water Well
Mark Thomlinson Marvin Franklin
2 LeBeau-Thelen, LLP 8034 Balcom Canyon Road
5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 Somis, CA 93066
3 Bakersfield, CA 93309 avoman@earthlink.net
rkuhs@lebeauthelen.com
4 mtomlinson@lebeauthelen.com In pro per
5 Attorneys for Defendants Berkshire
Investments, LLC, Berylwood Ranch, LLC,
6 Santa Elena Farms, LLC, Broadway Road
Moorpark LLC, Santa Clara Avenue Oxnard
7 LP, Balcom-Bixby Water Association Inc., John
W. Borchard Ranches, Inc., Ernest Borchard
8 Ranch Co., LLC, J. David Borchard and
Preview
PACHOWICZ|GOLDENRING FILED SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIA A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION COUNTY of SANTA BARBARA 2 PETER A. GOLDENRING (Bar No. 79387) peter@gopro-law.com 04/22/2022 3 6050 Seahawk Street Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer Ventura, California 93003 BY Baksh, NarzralIi 4 805.642.6702 Deputy Clerk Telephone: Facsimile: 805.642.3145 56789 DOWNEY BRAND LLP KEVIN M. O’BRIEN (Bar No. 122713) kobrien@downeybrand.com MEREDITH E. NIKKEL (Bar No. 254818) mnikkel@downeybrand.com KELLY M. BREEN (Bar No. 267715) kbreen@downeybrand.com BRIAN E. HAMILTON (Bar No. 295 994) bhamilton@downeybrand.com 10 HOLLY E. TOKAR (Bar No. 334288) htokar@downeybrand.com 11 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor Sacramento, California 95 814 12 Telephone: 916.444.1000 DOWNEY BRAND LLP Facsimile: 916.444.2100 13 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff LAS 14 POSAS BASIN WATER RIGHTS COALITION 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 17 LAS POSAS BASIN WATER RIGHTS Case No. 21CVO3714 COALITION, an unincorporated association, 18 Related Case Nos. VENC10050970; Petitioner and Plaintiff, 20CV02036 19 V. Assignedfor all purposes t0 the Honorable 20 Thomas P. Anderle, Dept. 3 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER 21 MANAGEMENT AGENCY, a public entity, CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 22 FCGMA and Defendant. STATEMENT 23 Date: May 6, 2022 DOES l-100, Time: 8:30 am 24 Judge: Hon. Thomas P. Anderle Real Parties in Interest. 25 26 27 28 1803838v2 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.725, Petitioner Las Posas Basin Water Rights 2 Coalition (“Petitioner”) submits the following statement for consideration by the Court for the 3 May 6, 2021 Case Management Conference. 4 I. Status of Case and Related Proceedings 5 A. The Present Writ Action Challenging FCGMA’s Allocation Ordinance 6 Petitioner filed the instant action on September 17, 2021 (the “Allocation Writ Action”). 7 The Petition challenges the adoption by Respondent Fox Canyon Groundwater Management 8 Agency (“FCGMA”) of “An Ordinance to Establish an Extraction Allocation System for the Las 9 Posas Groundwater Basin” (the “Allocation Ordinance”) on December 14, 2020. The Allocation 10 Ordinance purports to limit the amount of water individual well owners may extract from the Las 11 Posas Basin. The Allocation Ordinance became operative on October 1, 2021. Petitioner and 12 FCGMA entered a tolling agreement on March 31, 2021, whereby the parties agreed that DOWNEY BRAND LLP 13 Petitioner would not bring an action challenging the Allocation Ordinance from February 21, 2021 14 until August 15, 2021. FCGMA refused to enter a further tolling agreement following the 15 expiration of the original tolling agreement on August 15, 2021. Petitioner thereafter initiated the 16 Allocation Writ Action in order to preserve its claims against FCGMA. On December 7, 2021, the 17 parties filed a stipulation to continue the deadline for certification of the administrative record 18 until February 11, 2022. (Stipulation and Proposed Order re Administrative Record (Dec. 7, 19 2021), at 2.) On the same day, Petitioner filed a Request for Hearing pursuant to Public Resources 20 Code section 21167.4, requesting that the Court deter setting a hearing until after the parties have 21 had a chance to meet and confer regarding the status of the administrative record and appropriate 22 briefing and hearing schedule. (Request for Hearing (Dec. 7, 2021), at 2.) The parties have 23 entered into two additional stipulations to extend the deadline for certification of the 24 administrative record, and the current deadline to prepare the administrative record is June 13, 25 2022. (Third Stipulation and Proposed Order re Administrative Record (Apr. 12, 2022), at 2-3.) 26 B. The Comprehensive Adjudication 27 Meanwhile, the comprehensive groundwater adjudication of the Las Posas Groundwater 28 Basin is pending before the Court, Case No. VENCI00509700 (the “Comprehensive 1803838v2 2 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Adjudication”). Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Adjudication “will deal primarily with initial 2 individual allocation issues.” (CCMO (Dec. 11, 2020), ¶ 2(A).) “Phase 3 would deal primarily 3 with the adoption of a physical solution and the manner in that the physical solution will be 4 implemented and adaptively managed. This Phase will include resolution of the governance issue; 5 that is the intersection of the GMA’s and Court’s scope of authority.” (Id. at ¶ 2(B).) Trial for 6 Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Adjudication was scheduled to commence on January 19, 2022, but 7 on January 9, 2022, the Court of Appeal stayed the trial and related proceeding pending resolution 8 of an appeal to the Court’s order disqualifying counsel. (Case No. VENCI00509700, Temporary 9 Stay Order (January 11, 2022).) 10 C. The Writ Action to Challenge FCGMA’s GSP 11 Petitioner also filed a separate writ action to challenge FCGMA’s adoption of a 12 Groundwater Sustainability Plan (the “GSP Writ Action”), Case No. 20CV02036. The GSP Writ DOWNEY BRAND LLP 13 Action has been stayed pending the resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication. FCGMA 14 resisted Petitioner’s efforts to relate the GSP Writ Action and the Comprehensive Adjudication 15 and stay the GSP Writ Action during the pending Comprehensive Adjudication. However, in its 16 order denying FCGMA’s motion to transfer the GSP Writ Action, the Court stated: “The [GSP] 17 Writ Action is fundamentally dependent upon the disposition of the Comprehensive Adjudication 18 as to particulars relevant to Fox Canyon’s management responsibilities.” (Case No. 20CV02036, 19 Order Denying Motion to Transfer (July 28, 2020), at 7.) On April 8, 2021, the Court stayed the 20 GSP Writ Action until further resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication. (Case No. 21 VENCI00509700, CCMCO (Apr. 8, 2021), at 1.) In its recent order denying FCGMA’s motion to 22 lift the stay of the GSP Writ Action, the Court stated: “As the Court has repeatedly indicated, the 23 Court will manage these two matters together to avoid conflicting rulings and to promote judicial 24 efficiency.” (Case No. 20CV02036, Order Denying Motion to Lift Stay (Jan. 18, 2022), at 1.) 25 II. The Allocation Writ Action Should Be Managed in Conjunction with the Comprehensive Adjudication 26 A. There Is Good Cause to Continue Further Deadlines in the Allocation Writ 27 Action During the Pendency of the Comprehensive Adjudication 28 Like the GSP Writ Action, the Allocation Writ Action addresses questions that will be 1803838v2 3 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 addressed in the Comprehensive Adjudication. The cases involve common questions of fact and 2 law. The Allocation Writ Action includes claims that FCGMA abused its discretion in adopting 3 the Allocation Ordinance. The Allocation Writ Action also challenges the allocations adopted by 4 FCGMA based on faulty assumptions about the sustainable yield of the Las Posas Basin. These 5 issues will be at the forefront of the Comprehensive Adjudication in Phase 2 (regarding individual 6 groundwater allocations) and Phase 3 (regarding governance and a physical solution). Therefore, 7 pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.4, subdivision (c), good cause exists for not 8 setting a hearing date in the Allocation Writ Action until the conclusion of the Comprehensive 9 Adjudication. 10 In fact, there is also good cause to continue the deadline to prepare the administrative 11 record and set the hearing date in the Allocation Writ Action entirely. (See Pub. Resources Code, 12 § 21167.4, subd. (c).) First, there will be no prejudice to FCGMA in continuing the deadline to DOWNEY BRAND LLP 13 prepare the administrative record and setting the hearing date in the Allocation Writ Action. 14 Progress on the Comprehensive Adjudication has been significant. The parties have already 15 resolved Phase 1 and a settlement involving individual landowners and mutual water companies 16 regarding individual allocations on Phase 2 issues is pending the Court’s approval. (Case No. 17 VENCI00509700, Supplemental Opposition to FCOP Motion in Limine, Ex. 1 [executed Phase 2 18 Settlement Agreement].) The Phase 2 trial was stayed on the eve of trial, following extensive 19 preparation by the parties. Resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication will resolve many of 20 the issues before the court in the Allocation Writ Action and will therefore potentially moot the 21 Allocation Writ Action or portions of it. The Allocation Ordinance itself reflects this likelihood 22 and states: “In the event the superior court comprehensively determines groundwater rights to the 23 Basin, it is the intent of the Board to amend this ordinance in a manner consistent with water right 24 priorities in any final judgment entered in the adjudication.” (Petition, Ex. A, Allocation 25 Ordinance, art. 2 (“Purpose”).) Accordingly, allowing the Allocation Writ Action to proceed at 26 this point would be an enormous waste of both the parties’ resources and the Court’s, for no 27 apparent gain, and proceeding would create the possibility of conflicting orders. Instead, any and 28 all issues that can be resolved in the Comprehensive Adjudication should be resolved in the 1803838v2 4 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Comprehensive Adjudication, and only then should the Court address any remaining issues left to 2 be addressed in the Allocation Writ Action. 3 B. The Court Should Deem the Cases Related 4 On April 8, 2022, Petitioner filed a Notice of Related Cases formally informing the Court, 5 FCGMA, and parties to the Comprehensive Adjudication that the Allocation Writ Action, the 6 Comprehensive Adjudication, and the GSP Writ Action are currently pending. Petitioner 7 inadvertently failed to file this Notice in September 17, 2021 when they initiated the Allocation 8 Writ Action. But this inadvertence has not resulted in any “waiver” as asserted by FCGMAs in 9 their April 15, 2022 response to Petitioner’s Notice of Related Cases. As set forth herein, the 10 factors for deeming cases related still apply the same here as they did in September 2021. (Cal. 11 Rules of Court, rule 3.300.) The facts supporting a determination that the cases are related have 12 not changed since September 2021. FCGMA has not been prejudiced by Petitioner’s late filing DOWNEY BRAND LLP 13 because the Allocation Writ Action was assigned to the same judge as the Comprehensive 14 Adjudication notwithstanding the late filing. 15 FCGMA argues in its Response and Objection to Notice of Related Cases that the 16 Allocation Writ Action should proceed because CEQA actions are given “preference over all other 17 civil actions.” (Response, at 4.) This echoes FCGMA’s argument in the GSP Writ Action that 18 Petitioner’s Reverse Validation claim is entitled to statutory preference under Code of Civil 19 Procedure section 867, which the Court summarily rejected. (See Case No. VENCI00509700, 20 CCMO (Jan. Apr. 8, 2021), at 1.) The Court should also summarily reject FCGMA’s argument 21 that the collateral CEQA matter should proceed based on a claim of statutory preference pursuant 22 to Public Resources Code section 21167.1. The statutory preference for validation actions under 23 Code of Civil Procedure section 867 and CEQA actions under Public Resources Code section 24 21167.1 is the same. (Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 25 847.) In another complex cases dealing with water rights and collateral CEQA issues the Court in 26 the Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases declined to afford “unjustified preference to the 27 adjudication of the CEQA actions.” (Ibid.) As explained above, it would not be justified to allow 28 the Allocation Writ Ordinance to take preference over this court’s determination of the allocation 1803838v2 5 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 of groundwater rights in the Comprehensive Adjudication. 2 III. COMPLIANCE WITH CRC 3.724 3 The parties have met and conferred pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.724 and 4 the Court’s case management order dated January 4, 2021. The Court issued the case management 5 order two weeks before the expected start of the Phase 2 trial in the Comprehensive Adjudication. 6 At the time, the Court and the parties anticipated that commencement of the Phase 2 trial was 7 imminent and expected the upcoming conference to be informed by the outcome of the Phase 2 8 trial. Now that the Phase 2 trial has been stayed pending appeal, Petitioner has raised its concern 9 to FCGMA that a hearing the merits of the Allocation Writ Action should not occur prior to 10 resolution of the Comprehensive Adjudication. FCGMA has only agreed to stipulate to continue 11 the deadline to certify the administrative record until June 13, 2022. FCGMA has not agreed to 12 continue further deadlines in the Allocation Writ Action until resolution of the Comprehensive DOWNEY BRAND LLP 13 Adjudication. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Court continue the scheduling of a hearing and 16 deadline for preparation of the administrative record in the Allocation Writ Action until resolution 17 of issues in the Comprehensive Adjudication would be the most efficient manner to proceed. 18 DATED: April 21, 2022 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 19 20 By: 21 BRIAN E. HAMILTON Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff LAS POSAS 22 BASIN WATER RIGHTS COALITION 23 24 25 26 27 28 1803838v2 6 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Case No. 21CV03714 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am 5 employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. My business address is 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. 6 On April 21, 2022, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as CASE 7 MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT on the interested parties in this action as follows: 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 9 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the 10 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address kscott@downeybrand.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the 11 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the DOWNEY BRAND LLP foregoing is true and correct. 13 Executed on April 21, 2022, at Sacramento, California. 14 15 /s/ Karen Scott 16 Karen Scott 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1803838v2 7 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 SERVICE LIST Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency 2 Case No. 21CV03714 [Case No. VENCI00509700] 3 LeRoy Smith Elizabeth P. Ewens 4 Karen Marble Timothy Taylor Jason Cangor Janeele S.H. Krattiger 5 COUNTY OF VENTURA Heraclio Pimentel 800 South Victoria Ave., L/C #1830 STOEL RIVES LLP 6 Ventura, CA 93009 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Karen.Marble@ventura.org Sacramento, CA 95814 7 Jason.Canger@ventura.org elizabeth.ewens@stoel.com tim.taylor@stoel.com 8 Attorneys for Defendant Fox Canyon janelle.krattiger@stoel.com Groundwater Management Agency heraclio.pimentel@stoel.com 9 Bruce Alan Finck 10 WOOD & FINCK 39 N. California Street 11 Ventura, CA 93001 bfinck@woodfinck.com 12 DOWNEY BRAND LLP Attorneys for Defendant Fox Canyon 13 Groundwater Management Agency 14 Steven R. Hagemann Theodore J. England Francisco Corral FERGUSON CASE ORR PATERSON LLP 15 THE VENTURA LEGACY GROUP, APC 1050 South Kimball Road 1823 Knoll Drive Ventura, CA 93004 16 Ventura, CA 93003 tengland@fcoplaw.com steve@venturalegacygroup.com 17 frank@venturalegacygroup.com Attorney for Defendants Sunshine Ranch, LLC 18 Attorneys for Defendants CULBERT FARMS, LLC; MARIE KILDEE; DELCIA ANN 19 GIACALONE; JENNIFER ELIZABETH KILDEE; RICHARD D. CULBERT; MICHAEL 20 KENNETH KILDEE; KEVIN BERTIS KILDEE; SHARLEE C. CARNES; MEREDITH C. 21 HORTON; MICHAEL E. CULBERT; LAUREN A. BORCHARD, TRUSTEE FOR THE LAB 22 TRUST; LESLIE K. BORCHARD; JAMES A. WATERS III, TRUSTEE FOR THE J&H 23 REVOCABLE TRUST; JAMES A. WATERS III, TRUSTEE FOR THE ANDREW EXEMPT 24 TRUST; JAMES D. ENGEL, TRUSTEE FOR THE JAMES D. ENGEL AND KAY A. ENGEL 25 TRUST DATED APRIL 15, 1998 26 27 28 1803838v2 8 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Kevin G. Ennis Craig M. Lynch CITY OF MOORPARK LYNCH & LYNCH 2 kennis@rwglaw.com P.O. Box 13515 Bakersfield, CA 93389-3515 3 James L. Markman clynch@lynchandlynchlawfirm.com B. Tilden Kim 4 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Attorneys for Defendants Sharlee C. Carnes; 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Meredith C. Horton; Michael E. Culbert 5 Los Angeles, CA 90071 6 Attorneys for City of Moorpark 7 Wesley A. Miliband Gregory J. Patterson Andrew Donovan Foley MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 8 Kristopher T. Strouse 2801 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & Westlake Village, CA 91361 9 ROMO g.patterson@musickpeeler.com 2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 300 10 Sacramento, CA 95833 Attorney for Crestview Mutual Water Company Wes.Miliband@aalrr.com 11 Andrew.Foley@aalrr.com Kristopher.Strouse@aalrr.com 12 DOWNEY BRAND LLP Attorneys for Mesa Union School District 13 Peter L. Candy Wayne Keith Lemieux, Jr. 14 Thomas G. Thornton Steven O’Neill HOLLISTER & BRACE, APC Alex Lemieux 15 1126 Santa Barbara Street ALSHIRE & WYNDER, LLP P.O. Box 630 2659 Townsgate Road, Suite 226 16 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 Westlake Village, CA 91361 pcandy@hbsb.com klemieux@awattorneys.com 17 tgthornton@hbsb.com alemieux@awattorneys.com soneill@awattorneys.com 18 Attorneys for Defendants Fuller Falls Mutual Water Company; Saticoy Partners, LLC; Attorneys for Defendant Berylwood Heights 19 Starfire Ranch, LLC; Katherine Cannon and Mutual Water Company Oliver Hutchinson; K-9, LLC; Guzman’s 20 Investments and Loans, Inc.; Harvest Ranch; Flying H. Farms; Mustang Creek Ranch, LLC; 21 Penmeg, LLC; San Miguel Farms; Vista 11, LLC; Josep J. Bilic Trust; GFO, LLC; Fremont 22 HGS, LLC; Vista Anacapa Family Farm, LLC; Geraldine P. Berns Trust; Las Lomas Mutual 23 Water Company; 24 25 26 27 28 1803838v2 9 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Robert J. Saperstein Eric Garner BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER Christopher Pisano 2 SCHRECK, LLP Jeffrey V. Dunn 1021 Anacapa Street, Second Floor Patrick Skahan 3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Maya Mouawad rsaperstein@bhfs.com BEST BEST KRIEGER LLP 4 300 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor Attorneys for Wonderful Citrus, LLC; Lemon Los Angeles, CA 90071 5 500, LLC; eric.garner@bbklaw.com christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com 6 Matt Kline jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com Barton H. Thompson patrick.skahan@bbklaw.com 7 Russell M. McGlothlin maya.mouawad@bbklaw.com Heather Welles 8 Katie Takajian Attorneys for Calleguas Municipal Water O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP District and the City of San Buenaventura 9 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 10 mkline@omm.com bthompson@omm.com 11 rmcglothlin@omm.com hwelles@omm.com 12 ktakakjian@omm.com DOWNEY BRAND LLP 13 Attorneys for Mittag Ranches, and Mittag Farms; Ann Broome Priske Trust; Elizabeth 14 Broome Grether Trust; John S. Broome, Jr. Trust; and Survivor’s Administrative Trust 15 under the Grether Family Trust Dated September 12, 1989; Seacoast Farms, LLC; JG 16 Leavens LLC; Leavens Ranches LLC; Sunshine Agriculture, Inc.; John R. Milligan, Trustee of 17 the John R. Milligan Trust dated December 11, 1998; Richard H. Jones Limited Partnership, a 18 Colorado Limited Partnership; Lucy Milligan Wahl and Claire Catherine Milligan, as 19 Successor Co-Trustees of the MCM Trust II, dated December 14, 1990; Julia and Jim 20 Summers, Trustees of the Julia Summers 2013 Trust dated August 29, 2013; Susan C. Bravo, 21 as Trustee of the Susan C. Bravo Trust, dated October 26, 1993; Carolyn Howarth, Trustee of 22 the John J. Pomatto Trust Two, created January 2, 2012; Carolyn Howarth, Trustee of 23 the Wesley J. Pomotto Trust Two, created January 2, 2012; Palmyre Lucie Lent, as 24 Trustee of the Palmyre Lucie Walsh Trust dated September 10, 2001; Nicole K. Bravo, as 25 Trustee of the Nicole K. Bravo dated September 7, 2001; and Kimberly Jeanne Milligan, as 26 Trustee of the Kimberly J. Milligan Trust dated May 16, 1995; Dos Amigos Trust; GST Exempt 27 Exemption Trust; Farmland Reserve, Inc. 28 1803838v2 10 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Gregory G. Diaz Robert A. Bailey Miles P. Hogan LAGERLOF, LLP 2 CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 1100 501 Poli Street, Rm 213 Pasadena, CA 91101 3 Ventura, CA 93001 rbailey@lagerlof.com gdiaz@cityofventura.ca.gov 4 mhogan@cityofventura.ca.gov Attorney for Thomas A. Kestly Family Trust 2003 5 Attorneys for City of San Buenaventura 6 Michael Van Zandt Edward Casey Nathan A. Metcalf Gina Angiolillo 7 Sean G. Herman ALSTON & BIRD LLP HANSON & BRIDGETT LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor 8 425 Market Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 San Francisco, CA 94105 ed.casey@alston.com 9 mvanzandt@hansonbridgett.com gina.angiolillo@alston.com nmetcalf@hansonbridgett.com 10 sherman@hansonbridgett.com Attorneys for Butler Ranch Mutual Water Company; Shane L. Butler Family Growers 11 Attorneys for Defendants Ventura County LLC; Hypericum Land Company LLC; Waterworks District No. 1; Ventura County Hypericum Interests, LLC 12 Waterworks District No. 19; and Ventura DOWNEY BRAND LLP County 13 Connie Allen Edward M. Hacobian 14 4450 Bradley Road 5951 Heatherton Drive P.O. Box 321 Somis, CA 93066 15 Somis, CA 93006 Edward_hacobian@hotmail.com 16 In Pro Per In Pro Per Via U.S. Mail 17 Robert C. Schnieders Joseph D. Hughes 18 Valerie Schnieders KLEIN, DeNATALE & GOLDNER 107 Apolena Avenue 10000 Stockdale Highway, Suite 200 19 Newport Beach, CA 92662 Bakersfield, CA 93311 nbccc1@gmail.com jhughes@kleinlaw.com 20 In Pro Per Attorneys for Defendant Zone Mutual Water 21 Company 22 Leroy Smith Leroy Smith County Counsel County Counsel 23 Robert Orellana Eric Walts Assistant County Counsel Assistant County Counsel 24 800 South Victoria Ave., L/C 1830 800 South Victoria Ave., #1830 Ventura, CA 93009 Ventura, CA 93009 25 Robert.orellana@ventura.org eric.walts@ventura.org 26 Attorney for Defendant Ventura County Fire Attorney for Defendant Ventura Watershed Protection District Protection District 27 28 1803838v2 11 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Robert N. Kwong Robert A. Bailey Susan L. McCarthy ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN, 2 ARNOLD LaROCHELLE MATHEWS CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP VANCONAS & ZIRBEL LLP 301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1100 3 300 E. Esplande Drive, Suite 2100 Pasadena, CA 91101 Oxnard, CA 93036 rbailey@afrct.com 4 rkwong@atozlaw.com smccarthy@atozlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Spirt Equestrian, LLC 5 Attorneys for James D. Hearn and Shira C. 6 Hearn; The Ronald and Nickoletta Partain Family Trust; James A. Fitzgerald Trust No. II; 7 Gayl Family 1992 Trust; CE + D Mabry Family LP; Ali Seyedi Revocable Trust dated 8 12/30/2019; Apricot Lane Farm Holdings, LLC; JJM Somis Ranch, LLC; Benchmark 9 Partners Ag, LLC; Davidson Family Trust dated 09/23/1992; Chris Marcussen; The 10 Newman Trust dated 01/27/2000; Lee Stoeckle Living Trust dated 10/19/2009; Bell Ranch 11 Investors, LLC; Rancho Canada Water Company LLC; Samuel and Sylvia Alvarez 12 Family Revocable Trust dated 02/20/1998; DOWNEY BRAND LLP Bryce and Elaine Bannatyne Trust; Robert Ann 13 Bianchi Trust dated 04/25/1988;April First Trust dated 01/15/2001; Jose de Jesus and 14 Maria de la Cruz Gutierrez; Lowe Family Trust dated 07/28/1996; Brian L. Moore Revocable 15 Trust dated 10/30/2009;Decedent’s Trust of the Mueller Family Trust dated 05/04/1999; 16 Survivor’s Trust, under the O’Donnell Family Trust dated 06/11/2003; Charles R. and 17 Kathleen M. Northcross Family Trust dated 05/27/2000; Bruecker 2005 Revocable Family 18 Trust; Elizabeth B. Grether Trust; Helen G. Grether Trust 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1803838v2 12 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Richard Alan Baron, Trustee of the Richard Neal P. Maguire Baron Revocable Trust DTD 12/17/15 James Q. McDermott 2 P.O. Box 25 Jessica Wan Somis, CA 93066 FERGUSON CASE ORR & PATTERSON 3 rich101@me.com LLP 1050 S. Kimball Road 4 In Pro Per Ventura, CA 93004 nmaguire@fcoplaw.com 5 mcdermott@fcoplw.com jwan@fcoplaw.com 6 Attorneys for Defendants Jane Donlon Water 7 and Marcia L. Donlon, Trustees of the David J. Donlon Decendent’s Trust; Jane Donlon 8 Waters and Marcia L. Donlon Trustees of the Marcia L. Donlon Survivor’s Trust; Las Nietas, 9 LLC; Donlon Ranch Somis; Epsworth Water Group; Alton L. Jones; Gary M. Cusumano and 10 Diana L. Cusumano as Trustees, or the Successor Trustee, Under the Gary M. 11 Cusumano and Diana L. Cusumano Family Trust Dated May 30, 2002, Between Gary M. 12 Cusumano and Diana L. Cusumano Trustors DOWNEY BRAND LLP and as Trustees; Mahan Ranch LLC; Mahan 13 Development Corporation; Ralph D. Mahan, Trustee of the Ralph D. Mahan Separate 14 Property Trust Dated June 12, 2003; Oro Del Norte, LLC; Kathleen M. Stevens and Leon 15 Scott Stevens, Co-Trustees of the Leon O. Stevens Trust Dated November 19, 1997; 16 Urban-D Ranch Limited Partnership; and VMB Water System; RBV 2+5 LLC; RBV-Vanoni, 17 LLC; John A. McGonigle Trustee of the John A. McGonigle Trust Dated October 7, 2010; 18 Kirschbaum, LLC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1803838v2 13 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 1 Robert G. Kuhs Balcom Canyon Water Well Mark Thomlinson Marvin Franklin 2 LeBeau-Thelen, LLP 8034 Balcom Canyon Road 5001 East Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 Somis, CA 93066 3 Bakersfield, CA 93309 avoman@earthlink.net rkuhs@lebeauthelen.com 4 mtomlinson@lebeauthelen.com In pro per 5 Attorneys for Defendants Berkshire Investments, LLC, Berylwood Ranch, LLC, 6 Santa Elena Farms, LLC, Broadway Road Moorpark LLC, Santa Clara Avenue Oxnard 7 LP, Balcom-Bixby Water Association Inc., John W. Borchard Ranches, Inc., Ernest Borchard 8 Ranch Co., LLC, J. David Borchard and