Preview
NO FEE DUE
GOV'T CODE § 6103
1 JOSEPH M. MARCHINI #082427
jmarchini@bakermanock.com E-FILED
2 LAUREN D. LAYNE #273627 5/31/2019 11:49 AM
llayne@bakermanock.com Superior Court of California
3 Baker Manock & Jensen, PC County of Fresno
5260 North Palm Avenue, Fourth Floor By: S. Garcia, Deputy
4 Fresno, California 93704
Telephone: 559.432.5400
5 Facsimile: 559.432.5620
6 Attorneys for Defendant TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF FRESNO, CENTRAL DIVISION
10
11 JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Case No. 19CECG00769
12 Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER OF
v. TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION
13 DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT
KINGS RIVER WATER ASSOCIATION; STEVE OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT
14 HAUGEN, solely in his official capacity as Kings
River Water Master; BURRELL DITCH
15 COMPANY; LOVELACE WATER
CORPORATION (fka CIRCLE "L" FARMS);
16 CLARK'S FORK RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO.
2069; TULARE LAKE RECLAMATION
17 DISTRICT NO. 761 (aka COHN CENTRAL
CONSOLIDATED DISTRICT NO. 761);
18 CORCORAN IRRIGATION COMPANY;
CRESCENT CANAL COMPANY; EMPIRE WEST
19 SIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT; JOHN HEINLEN
MUTUAL WATER COMPANY; LAGUNA
20 IRRIGATION DISTRICT; LAST CHANCE
WATER DITCH COMPANY; LEMOORE CANAL
21 & IRRIGATION COMPANY; LIBERTY CANAL
COMPANY; LIBERTY MILL RACE COMPANY;
22 PEOPLES DITCH COMPANY; REED DITCH
COMPANY; RIVERDALE IRRIGATION
23 DISTRICT; SOUTHEAST LAKE WATER
COMPANY; STINSON CANAL & IRRIGATION
24 COMPANY; STRATFORD IRRIGATION
DISTRICT; TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION
25 DISTRICT; TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER
STORAGE DISTRICT; TULARE LAKE CANAL
26 COMPANY; UPPER SAN JOSE WATER
COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
27
Defendants.
28
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 1
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 Defendant TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT ("Defendant" or
2 "Tranquillity ID") responds to plaintiff James Irrigation District's ("Plaintiff" or "James ID")
3 complaint ("Complaint") as follows:
4 1. Answering paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
5 the allegations of the paragraph insufficiently describe the complaint to which the paragraph refers
6 so that Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to answer and, on that basis,
7 Defendant denies each and every allegation of paragraph 1.
8 2. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the
9 allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of
10 paragraph 2, but reserves its right to amend its answer to the extent necessary as additional
11 information is developed through discovery.
12 3. Paragraph 3 of the complaint comprises a statement of Plaintiffs' intent and
13 purpose for filing its complaint to which no response is required. To the extent a response is
14 required, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the
15 allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of
16 paragraph 3.
17 4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant admits James ID is a
18 California public agency. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the
19 remaining allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every
20 allegation of paragraph 4 not expressly admitted herein.
21 5. Defendants admits Plaintiff is authorized to name KRWA as a defendant in this
22 action. Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation of paragraph 5 not expressly
23 admitted herein.
24 6. Defendant admits defendant Steve Haugen is an individual and is the current
25 Kings River Water Master appointed by the KRWA Board of Directors. Defendant lacks sufficient
26 information or belief to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint
27 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 6 not expressly admitted herein.
28
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 2
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 7. Answering paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
2 the allegations of the paragraph are unintelligible so that Defendant lacks sufficient information or
3 belief upon which to answer and, on that basis, Defendant denies each and every allegation of
4 paragraph 7.
5 8. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the
6 allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of
7 paragraph 8.
8 9. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
9 10. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
10 11. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
11 12. Answering paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Exhibit "A"
12 to the Complaint is a true and accurate copy of the 1963 Intra-Association Agreement as that term
13 is defined in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Defendant affirmatively alleges that paragraph 43 of
14 the Intra-Association Agreement speaks for itself and that the allegations of paragraph 12 of the
15 Complaint are legal argument to which no response is required. To the extent paragraph 12
16 contains allegations of fact, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit
17 or deny Defendant's allegations and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation of paragraph
18 12 not expressly admitted herein.
19 13. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
20 14. Answering paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
21 paragraph 5 the 1963 Lower River Agreement, as that term is defined in the Complaint, speaks for
22 itself and that the allegations of paragraph 14 of the complaint are legal argument to which no
23 response is required. To the extent paragraph 14 contains allegations of fact, Defendant lacks
24 sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny Defendant's allegations and, on that
25 basis, denies each and every allegation of paragraph 14.
26 15. Defendant denies each and every allegation of paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
27 16. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
28
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 3
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 17. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the
2 allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of
3 paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
4 18. Answering paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges
5 that paragraph 16 the Lower River Agreement, as that term is defined in the Complaint, speaks for
6 itself and that the allegations of paragraph 18 of the complaint are legal argument to which no
7 response is required. To the extent paragraph 18 contains allegations of fact, Defendant admits
8 that paragraph 16 of the 1963 Lower River Agreement provides, inter alia, that Defendant is to be
9 equitably compensated for river channel losses that result from the delivery of water to it.
10 Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining
11 allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of
12 paragraph 18 not expressly admitted herein.
13 19. Answering paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
14 the allegations thereof refer to Plaintiff's subjective impressions of the impact of certain
15 amendments alleged therein so that Defendant, as a consequence, necessarily lacks sufficient
16 information or belief upon which to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of the
17 Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 19.
18 20. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
19 the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
20 of paragraph 20.
21 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Breach of the 1963 Lower River Agreement Against All Defendants, except Tranquillity
22 Irrigation District
23 21. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 20, inclusive, as
24 though fully set forth herein.
25 22. Answering paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant admits JID and the
26 Defendant Units are signatories to the 1963 Lower River Agreement or are their successors in
27 interest. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the
28 remaining allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 4
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 remaining allegation of paragraph 22 not expressly admitted herein.
2 23. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
3 the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
4 of paragraph 23.
5 24. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
6 the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
7 of paragraph 24.
8 25. Defendant admits it did not take delivery of Kings River water in the water
9 year 2016-2017. Defendant denies that it did not exercise other Kings River water rights in water
10 year 2016-2017. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the
11 remaining allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every
12 allegation of paragraph 25 not expressly admitted herein.
13 26. Defendant admits that it did not authorize, direct, approve or adopt the action
14 of KRWA and the Water Master alleged in the Complaint. Defendant lacks sufficient information
15 or belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint
16 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 26 not expressly admitted herein.
17 27. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
18 the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
19 of paragraph 27, but reserves its right to amend its answer to the extent necessary as additional
20 information is developed through discovery.
21 28. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
22 the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
23 of paragraph 28.
24 29. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
25 the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
26 of paragraph 29.
27 ///
28 ///
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 5
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing with Respect To The 1963
Lower River Agreement Against All Defendants, except Tranquillity Irrigation District
3
4 30. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as
5 though fully set forth herein.
6 31. Answering paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant admits JID and the
7 Defendant Units are signatories to the 1963 Lower River Agreement or are their successors in
8 interest. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the
9 remaining allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every
10 remaining allegation of paragraph 31 not expressly admitted herein.
11 32. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
12 the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
13 of paragraph 32.
14 33. Answering paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
15 the allegations of paragraph 33 of the complaint is legal argument to which no response is
16 required. To the extent paragraph 33 contains allegations of fact, Defendant lacks sufficient
17 information or belief regarding Plaintiff's transactions with the defendants other than Tranquillity
18 Irrigation District upon which to admit or deny Defendant's allegations and, on that basis, denies
19 each and every allegation of paragraph 33.
20 34. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
21 the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
22 of paragraph 34.
23 35. Defendant admits it did not take delivery of Kings River water in the water
24 year 2016-2017. Defendant denies that it did not exercise its other Kings River water rights in
25 water year 2016-2017. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or
26 deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and
27 every allegation of paragraph 35 not expressly admitted herein.
28
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 6
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 36. Defendant admits that it did not authorize, direct, approve or adopt the action
2 of KRWA and the Water Master alleged in the Complaint. Defendant lacks sufficient information
3 or belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint
4 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 36 not expressly admitted herein.
5 37. Defendant admits it did not breach the implied duty of good faith and fair
6 dealing or any other duty it might owe Plaintiff, if any. Defendant lacks sufficient information or
7 belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint
8 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 37 not expressly admitted herein.
9 38. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
10 the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
11 of paragraph 38.
12 39. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
13 the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
14 of paragraph 39.
15 40. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
16 the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
17 of paragraph 40.
18 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against KRWA and the Water Master
19
20 41. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 40, inclusive, as
21 though fully set forth herein.
22 42. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
23 43. Answering paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
24 allegations of paragraph 43 are legal argument to which no response is required or possible. To
25 the extent to which paragraph 43 alleges facts to which a response is required, Defendant admits
26 that the agreements alleged therein create contractual obligations among the parties thereto.
27 Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief at this time to admit or deny the remaining
28 allegations of paragraph 43 and on that basis denies each and every remaining allegation of
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 7
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 paragraph 43 of the Complaint not expressly admitted herein.
2 44. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
3 45. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
4 the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
5 of paragraph 45.
6 46. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
7 the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
8 of paragraph 46.
9 47. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny
10 the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation
11 of paragraph 47.
12 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
13 Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants
14 48. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, as
15 though fully set forth herein.
16 49. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
17 50. Answering paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
18 the allegations of the paragraph are unintelligible so that Defendant lacks sufficient information or
19 belief upon which to answer and, on that basis, Defendant denies each and every allegation of
20 paragraph 50.
21 51. Answering paragraph 51, Defendant admits it currently disputes all other
22 parties' positions regarding the proper computation of compensation for conveyance losses and
23 that it reserves the right to advance in its defense of this cause of action for declaratory relief its
24 contention regarding the proper method of calculating the parties' entitlement to compensation for
25 conveyance and related losses.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 8
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Imposition of Physical Solution Against All Defendants
2
3 52. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive, as
4 though fully set forth herein.
5 53. Defendant admits that the language quoted in paragraph 53 of the Complaint
6 may be found in Article X, Section 2, of the California Constitution. Defendant denies that
7 paragraph 52 quotes Article X, Section 2, of the California Constitution in its entirety.
8 54. Answering paragraph 54 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that
9 allegations of paragraph 55 are legal argument to which no response is required. To the extent to
10 which paragraph 54 alleges facts to which a response is required, Defendant denies that the legal
11 authority cited therein or any other legal principle whatsoever authorizes or requires the court to
12 impose an allocation of water upon the parties to the complaint under the facts alleged in the
13 Complaint.
14 55. Answering paragraph 55 of the Complaint, Defendant specifically denies that
15 the Court can or should impose on the parties a judgment that allocates water from the Kings
16 River among the parties; and Defendant further denies each and every allegation of paragraph 55
17 of the Complaint.
18
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
19
20 Defendant pleads the following separate defenses. Defendant reserves the right to
21 assert additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates are proper.
22 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 (Failure to State a Claim)
24 1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported
25 causes of action set forth therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient
26 to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.
27 ///
28 ///
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 9
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Ambiguity in Declaratory Relief Claim and Claim for Physical Solution)
3 2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint, Plaintiff did not
4 clearly state the methodology by which it claims water should be allocated among the parties; nor
5 did it quantify its demand. Defendant requests that the court grant leave to amend its pleadings
6 once clarification is obtained through discovery.
7 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 (No Injury or Damage)
9 3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported
10 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not alleged the amount, if
11 any, by which it was injured or damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission for which
12 Defendant is responsible.
13 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 (Statute of Limitations)
15 4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause
16 of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable
17 statute of limitations.
18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 (Waiver and Estoppel)
20 5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cauuse
21 of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from recovery by way of
22 waiver, laches and estoppel.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 10
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 (Other Affirmative Defenses)
3 6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause
4 of action contained therein, Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses
5 as facts become known which justify the application of those affirmative defenses in this action.
6 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for relief as follows:
7 1. That the court determine the rights of the parties regarding the matters alleged in the
8 Fourth Cause of Action of the Complaint;
9 2. That Plaintiff take no other relief agairist Defendant whatsoever;
10 3. The Defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred herein; and
11 4. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relied as the court deems just and
12 proper in the premises.
13 DATED: May 31, 2019 BAKER MANQCK JENSEN, PC
14 I /
15 BY:
Joseph M. Marc ini
16 Lauren D. Larie
Attorneys f91 Defendant TRANQUILLITY
17 IRRIGATION DISTRICT
18
19
20 (VERIFICATION NEXT PAGE)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2336824v1 / 19493.0008 11
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
1
VERIFICATION
2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
4
5 I have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION
DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF KINGS RIVER WATER ASSOCIATION and
6 know its contents.
7 I am General Manager of Tranquillity Irrigation District, a party to this action, and am
authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that
8 reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the
foregoing document are true.
9
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
10 foregoing is true and correct.
11 Executed on May , 2019, at Tranquillity, California.
12
13
14 ignature
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2336824 vl / 19493.0008 12
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF KINGS
RIVER WATER ASSOCIATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Case No. 19CECG00769
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. My business address is 5260 North Palm
5 Avenue, Fourth Floor, Fresno, CA 93704.
6 On May 31, 2019, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED
7 COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT on the interested parties in this action as
follows:
8
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
9
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
10 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of
11 Baker Manock & Jensen, PC for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the
same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary
12 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully
prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was
13 placed in the mail at Fresno, California.
14 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in the
Service List by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to Odyssey through the user
15 interface at https://california.tylerhost.net/.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
17
Executed on May 31, 2019, at Fresno, California.
18
19
20 Janice L. Lewis
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Case No.
3 Ryan S. Bezerra Christopher S. Hall
Andrew J. Ramos Ben Nicholson
4 Patrick K. Fitzgerald McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte &
Bartkiewicz Kronick & Shanahan Carruth LLP
5 1011 Twenty-Second Street 7647 North Fresno Street
Sacramento CA 95816-4907 P. 0. Box 28912
6 Telephone: 916-446-4254 Fresno CA 93720
Fax: 916-446-4018 Telephone: 559-433-1300
7 rsb@bkslawfirm.com Fax: 559-433-2300
Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES IRRIGATION christopher.hall@mccormickbarstow.com
DISTRICT ben.nicholson@mccormickbarstow.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES IRRIGATION
DISTRICT
9
Leonard C. Herr Joseph D. Hughes
10 Rhea Ikemiya, John V. Komar
HERR PEDERSEN & BERGLUND LLP KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER,
11 Attorneys at Law COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP
100 Willow Plaza, Suite 300 4550 California Ave., Second Floor
12 Visalia, California 93291 Bakersfield, CA 93309
Telephone: (559) 636-0200 Telephone: (661) 395-1000
13 Fax: (559) 636-9759 Fax: (661) 326-0418
lherr@hpblaw.net JHughesakleinlaw.com
14 rheaikemiya@hpblaw.net ikomar@kleinlaw.com
Attorneys for KINGS RIVER WATER Attorneys for KINGS RIVER WATER
15 ASSOCIATION AND STEVEN HAUGEN ASSOCIATION AND STEVEN HAUGEN
16
Kenneth J. Richardson Aubrey Mauritson
17 PELTZER & RICHARDSON, LC RUDDELL STANTON BIXLER
3746 W. Mineral Kings Avenue MAURITSON & EVANS, LLP
18 Visalia CA 93291 1102 N. Chinowth Street
Telephone 559-372-2400 Visalia CA 93291
19 Fax: 559-553-6221 Telephone: 559-733-5770
krichardson(4rlawcorp.eorn Fax: 559-733-4922
20 Attorneys for LAST CHANCE WATER amauritson@visalialaw.com
DITCH COMPANY and PEOPLES DITCH Attorneys for TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER
COMPANY STORAGE DISTRICT, TULARE LAKE
21 CANAL COMPANY, SOUTHEAST LAKE
WATER COMPANY, LEMOORE CANAL &
22 IRRIGATION COMPANY, CORCORAN
IRRIGATION COMPANY, CRESCENT
23 CANAL COMPANY, STINSON CANAL &
IRRIGATION COMPANY, REED DITCH
24 COMPANY, JOHN HEINLEN MUTUAL
WATER COMPANY, LOVELACE WATER
25 CORPORATION (FKA CIRCLE "L" FARMS)
26
27
28
2
1 Michael N. Nordstrom David Kahn
Law Offices of Michael N. Nordstrom KAHN SOARES & CONWAY LLP
2 222 W. Lacey Blvd. 219 W. Douty Street
Hanford CA 93230 Hanford CA 93230
3 Telephone: 559-584-3131 Telephone: 559-584-3337
Fax: 559-584-3132 Fax: 559-584-3348
4 nordlaw@nordstrom5.com dkahnekschanford.com
Attorneys for BURRELL DITCH COMPANY, Attorneys for STRATFORD IRRIGATION
5 LIBERTY CANAL COMPANY, LIBERTY DISTRICT AND RIVERDALE IRRIGATION
MILL RACE, UPPER SAN JOSE WATER DISTRICT
COMPANY, EMPIRE WEST SIDE
6 IRRIGATION DISTRICT, LAGUNA
IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
7
Marshall C. Whitney
8 WHITNEY THOMPSON & JEFFCOACH
LLP
9 8050 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 110
Fresno CA 93711
10 Telephone: 559-753-2550
Fax: 559-753-2560
11 mwhitney@wtjlaw.com
Attorneys for TULARE LAKE
12 RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 761 (aka
COHN CENTRAL CONSOLIDATED
13 DISTRICT NO. 761)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Preview
NO FEE DUE GOV'T CODE § 6103 1 JOSEPH M. MARCHINI #082427 jmarchini@bakermanock.com E-FILED 2 LAUREN D. LAYNE #273627 5/31/2019 11:49 AM llayne@bakermanock.com Superior Court of California 3 Baker Manock & Jensen, PC County of Fresno 5260 North Palm Avenue, Fourth Floor By: S. Garcia, Deputy 4 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: 559.432.5400 5 Facsimile: 559.432.5620 6 Attorneys for Defendant TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF FRESNO, CENTRAL DIVISION 10 11 JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Case No. 19CECG00769 12 Plaintiff, VERIFIED ANSWER OF v. TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION 13 DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT KINGS RIVER WATER ASSOCIATION; STEVE OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 14 HAUGEN, solely in his official capacity as Kings River Water Master; BURRELL DITCH 15 COMPANY; LOVELACE WATER CORPORATION (fka CIRCLE "L" FARMS); 16 CLARK'S FORK RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2069; TULARE LAKE RECLAMATION 17 DISTRICT NO. 761 (aka COHN CENTRAL CONSOLIDATED DISTRICT NO. 761); 18 CORCORAN IRRIGATION COMPANY; CRESCENT CANAL COMPANY; EMPIRE WEST 19 SIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT; JOHN HEINLEN MUTUAL WATER COMPANY; LAGUNA 20 IRRIGATION DISTRICT; LAST CHANCE WATER DITCH COMPANY; LEMOORE CANAL 21 & IRRIGATION COMPANY; LIBERTY CANAL COMPANY; LIBERTY MILL RACE COMPANY; 22 PEOPLES DITCH COMPANY; REED DITCH COMPANY; RIVERDALE IRRIGATION 23 DISTRICT; SOUTHEAST LAKE WATER COMPANY; STINSON CANAL & IRRIGATION 24 COMPANY; STRATFORD IRRIGATION DISTRICT; TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION 25 DISTRICT; TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT; TULARE LAKE CANAL 26 COMPANY; UPPER SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, 27 Defendants. 28 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 1 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 Defendant TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT ("Defendant" or 2 "Tranquillity ID") responds to plaintiff James Irrigation District's ("Plaintiff" or "James ID") 3 complaint ("Complaint") as follows: 4 1. Answering paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 5 the allegations of the paragraph insufficiently describe the complaint to which the paragraph refers 6 so that Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to answer and, on that basis, 7 Defendant denies each and every allegation of paragraph 1. 8 2. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the 9 allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of 10 paragraph 2, but reserves its right to amend its answer to the extent necessary as additional 11 information is developed through discovery. 12 3. Paragraph 3 of the complaint comprises a statement of Plaintiffs' intent and 13 purpose for filing its complaint to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 14 required, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the 15 allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of 16 paragraph 3. 17 4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant admits James ID is a 18 California public agency. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the 19 remaining allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every 20 allegation of paragraph 4 not expressly admitted herein. 21 5. Defendants admits Plaintiff is authorized to name KRWA as a defendant in this 22 action. Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation of paragraph 5 not expressly 23 admitted herein. 24 6. Defendant admits defendant Steve Haugen is an individual and is the current 25 Kings River Water Master appointed by the KRWA Board of Directors. Defendant lacks sufficient 26 information or belief to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint 27 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 6 not expressly admitted herein. 28 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 2 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 7. Answering paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 2 the allegations of the paragraph are unintelligible so that Defendant lacks sufficient information or 3 belief upon which to answer and, on that basis, Defendant denies each and every allegation of 4 paragraph 7. 5 8. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the 6 allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of 7 paragraph 8. 8 9. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 9 10. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 10 11. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 11 12. Answering paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Exhibit "A" 12 to the Complaint is a true and accurate copy of the 1963 Intra-Association Agreement as that term 13 is defined in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Defendant affirmatively alleges that paragraph 43 of 14 the Intra-Association Agreement speaks for itself and that the allegations of paragraph 12 of the 15 Complaint are legal argument to which no response is required. To the extent paragraph 12 16 contains allegations of fact, Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit 17 or deny Defendant's allegations and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation of paragraph 18 12 not expressly admitted herein. 19 13. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 20 14. Answering paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 21 paragraph 5 the 1963 Lower River Agreement, as that term is defined in the Complaint, speaks for 22 itself and that the allegations of paragraph 14 of the complaint are legal argument to which no 23 response is required. To the extent paragraph 14 contains allegations of fact, Defendant lacks 24 sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny Defendant's allegations and, on that 25 basis, denies each and every allegation of paragraph 14. 26 15. Defendant denies each and every allegation of paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 27 16. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 28 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 3 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 17. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the 2 allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of 3 paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 4 18. Answering paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges 5 that paragraph 16 the Lower River Agreement, as that term is defined in the Complaint, speaks for 6 itself and that the allegations of paragraph 18 of the complaint are legal argument to which no 7 response is required. To the extent paragraph 18 contains allegations of fact, Defendant admits 8 that paragraph 16 of the 1963 Lower River Agreement provides, inter alia, that Defendant is to be 9 equitably compensated for river channel losses that result from the delivery of water to it. 10 Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining 11 allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of 12 paragraph 18 not expressly admitted herein. 13 19. Answering paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 14 the allegations thereof refer to Plaintiff's subjective impressions of the impact of certain 15 amendments alleged therein so that Defendant, as a consequence, necessarily lacks sufficient 16 information or belief upon which to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 19 of the 17 Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 19. 18 20. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 19 the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 20 of paragraph 20. 21 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Breach of the 1963 Lower River Agreement Against All Defendants, except Tranquillity 22 Irrigation District 23 21. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 20, inclusive, as 24 though fully set forth herein. 25 22. Answering paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant admits JID and the 26 Defendant Units are signatories to the 1963 Lower River Agreement or are their successors in 27 interest. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the 28 remaining allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 4 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 remaining allegation of paragraph 22 not expressly admitted herein. 2 23. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 3 the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 4 of paragraph 23. 5 24. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 6 the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 7 of paragraph 24. 8 25. Defendant admits it did not take delivery of Kings River water in the water 9 year 2016-2017. Defendant denies that it did not exercise other Kings River water rights in water 10 year 2016-2017. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the 11 remaining allegations of paragraph 25 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every 12 allegation of paragraph 25 not expressly admitted herein. 13 26. Defendant admits that it did not authorize, direct, approve or adopt the action 14 of KRWA and the Water Master alleged in the Complaint. Defendant lacks sufficient information 15 or belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint 16 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 26 not expressly admitted herein. 17 27. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 18 the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 19 of paragraph 27, but reserves its right to amend its answer to the extent necessary as additional 20 information is developed through discovery. 21 28. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 22 the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 23 of paragraph 28. 24 29. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 25 the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 26 of paragraph 29. 27 /// 28 /// 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 5 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 2 Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing with Respect To The 1963 Lower River Agreement Against All Defendants, except Tranquillity Irrigation District 3 4 30. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as 5 though fully set forth herein. 6 31. Answering paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant admits JID and the 7 Defendant Units are signatories to the 1963 Lower River Agreement or are their successors in 8 interest. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny the 9 remaining allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every 10 remaining allegation of paragraph 31 not expressly admitted herein. 11 32. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 12 the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 13 of paragraph 32. 14 33. Answering paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 15 the allegations of paragraph 33 of the complaint is legal argument to which no response is 16 required. To the extent paragraph 33 contains allegations of fact, Defendant lacks sufficient 17 information or belief regarding Plaintiff's transactions with the defendants other than Tranquillity 18 Irrigation District upon which to admit or deny Defendant's allegations and, on that basis, denies 19 each and every allegation of paragraph 33. 20 34. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 21 the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 22 of paragraph 34. 23 35. Defendant admits it did not take delivery of Kings River water in the water 24 year 2016-2017. Defendant denies that it did not exercise its other Kings River water rights in 25 water year 2016-2017. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or 26 deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and 27 every allegation of paragraph 35 not expressly admitted herein. 28 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 6 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 36. Defendant admits that it did not authorize, direct, approve or adopt the action 2 of KRWA and the Water Master alleged in the Complaint. Defendant lacks sufficient information 3 or belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint 4 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 36 not expressly admitted herein. 5 37. Defendant admits it did not breach the implied duty of good faith and fair 6 dealing or any other duty it might owe Plaintiff, if any. Defendant lacks sufficient information or 7 belief upon which to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint 8 and on that basis denies each and every allegation of paragraph 37 not expressly admitted herein. 9 38. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 10 the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 11 of paragraph 38. 12 39. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 13 the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 14 of paragraph 39. 15 40. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 16 the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 17 of paragraph 40. 18 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against KRWA and the Water Master 19 20 41. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 40, inclusive, as 21 though fully set forth herein. 22 42. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 23 43. Answering paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 24 allegations of paragraph 43 are legal argument to which no response is required or possible. To 25 the extent to which paragraph 43 alleges facts to which a response is required, Defendant admits 26 that the agreements alleged therein create contractual obligations among the parties thereto. 27 Defendant lacks sufficient information and belief at this time to admit or deny the remaining 28 allegations of paragraph 43 and on that basis denies each and every remaining allegation of 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 7 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 paragraph 43 of the Complaint not expressly admitted herein. 2 44. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 3 45. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 4 the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 5 of paragraph 45. 6 46. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 7 the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 8 of paragraph 46. 9 47. Defendant lacks sufficient information or belief upon which to admit or deny 10 the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Complaint and on that basis denies each and every allegation 11 of paragraph 47. 12 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 13 Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants 14 48. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive, as 15 though fully set forth herein. 16 49. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 17 50. Answering paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 18 the allegations of the paragraph are unintelligible so that Defendant lacks sufficient information or 19 belief upon which to answer and, on that basis, Defendant denies each and every allegation of 20 paragraph 50. 21 51. Answering paragraph 51, Defendant admits it currently disputes all other 22 parties' positions regarding the proper computation of compensation for conveyance losses and 23 that it reserves the right to advance in its defense of this cause of action for declaratory relief its 24 contention regarding the proper method of calculating the parties' entitlement to compensation for 25 conveyance and related losses. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 8 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Imposition of Physical Solution Against All Defendants 2 3 52. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 51, inclusive, as 4 though fully set forth herein. 5 53. Defendant admits that the language quoted in paragraph 53 of the Complaint 6 may be found in Article X, Section 2, of the California Constitution. Defendant denies that 7 paragraph 52 quotes Article X, Section 2, of the California Constitution in its entirety. 8 54. Answering paragraph 54 of the Complaint, Defendant affirmatively alleges that 9 allegations of paragraph 55 are legal argument to which no response is required. To the extent to 10 which paragraph 54 alleges facts to which a response is required, Defendant denies that the legal 11 authority cited therein or any other legal principle whatsoever authorizes or requires the court to 12 impose an allocation of water upon the parties to the complaint under the facts alleged in the 13 Complaint. 14 55. Answering paragraph 55 of the Complaint, Defendant specifically denies that 15 the Court can or should impose on the parties a judgment that allocates water from the Kings 16 River among the parties; and Defendant further denies each and every allegation of paragraph 55 17 of the Complaint. 18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 19 20 Defendant pleads the following separate defenses. Defendant reserves the right to 21 assert additional affirmative defenses that discovery indicates are proper. 22 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23 (Failure to State a Claim) 24 1. As a separate and first affirmative defense to the Complaint, and to the purported 25 causes of action set forth therein, Defendant alleges that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient 26 to constitute a cause of action against Defendant. 27 /// 28 /// 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 9 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Ambiguity in Declaratory Relief Claim and Claim for Physical Solution) 3 2. As a separate and second affirmative defense to the Complaint, Plaintiff did not 4 clearly state the methodology by which it claims water should be allocated among the parties; nor 5 did it quantify its demand. Defendant requests that the court grant leave to amend its pleadings 6 once clarification is obtained through discovery. 7 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 (No Injury or Damage) 9 3. As a separate and third affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported 10 cause of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has not alleged the amount, if 11 any, by which it was injured or damaged as a proximate result of any act or omission for which 12 Defendant is responsible. 13 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 (Statute of Limitations) 15 4. As a separate and fourth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause 16 of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable 17 statute of limitations. 18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19 (Waiver and Estoppel) 20 5. As a separate and fifth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cauuse 21 of action contained therein, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from recovery by way of 22 waiver, laches and estoppel. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 10 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 (Other Affirmative Defenses) 3 6. As a separate and sixth affirmative defense to the Complaint and each purported cause 4 of action contained therein, Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses 5 as facts become known which justify the application of those affirmative defenses in this action. 6 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for relief as follows: 7 1. That the court determine the rights of the parties regarding the matters alleged in the 8 Fourth Cause of Action of the Complaint; 9 2. That Plaintiff take no other relief agairist Defendant whatsoever; 10 3. The Defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred herein; and 11 4. That Defendant be awarded such other and further relied as the court deems just and 12 proper in the premises. 13 DATED: May 31, 2019 BAKER MANQCK JENSEN, PC 14 I / 15 BY: Joseph M. Marc ini 16 Lauren D. Larie Attorneys f91 Defendant TRANQUILLITY 17 IRRIGATION DISTRICT 18 19 20 (VERIFICATION NEXT PAGE) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2336824v1 / 19493.0008 11 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1 VERIFICATION 2 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 4 5 I have read the foregoing VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF KINGS RIVER WATER ASSOCIATION and 6 know its contents. 7 I am General Manager of Tranquillity Irrigation District, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that 8 reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. 9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 10 foregoing is true and correct. 11 Executed on May , 2019, at Tranquillity, California. 12 13 14 ignature 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2336824 vl / 19493.0008 12 VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF KINGS RIVER WATER ASSOCIATION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Case No. 19CECG00769 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. My business address is 5260 North Palm 5 Avenue, Fourth Floor, Fresno, CA 93704. 6 On May 31, 2019, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as VERIFIED ANSWER OF TRANQUILLITY IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO VERIFIED 7 COMPLAINT OF JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT on the interested parties in this action as follows: 8 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 9 BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the 10 persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of 11 Baker Manock & Jensen, PC for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary 12 course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was 13 placed in the mail at Fresno, California. 14 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the person listed in the Service List by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to Odyssey through the user 15 interface at https://california.tylerhost.net/. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 17 Executed on May 31, 2019, at Fresno, California. 18 19 20 Janice L. Lewis 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Case No. 3 Ryan S. Bezerra Christopher S. Hall Andrew J. Ramos Ben Nicholson 4 Patrick K. Fitzgerald McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Bartkiewicz Kronick & Shanahan Carruth LLP 5 1011 Twenty-Second Street 7647 North Fresno Street Sacramento CA 95816-4907 P. 0. Box 28912 6 Telephone: 916-446-4254 Fresno CA 93720 Fax: 916-446-4018 Telephone: 559-433-1300 7 rsb@bkslawfirm.com Fax: 559-433-2300 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES IRRIGATION christopher.hall@mccormickbarstow.com DISTRICT ben.nicholson@mccormickbarstow.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT 9 Leonard C. Herr Joseph D. Hughes 10 Rhea Ikemiya, John V. Komar HERR PEDERSEN & BERGLUND LLP KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER, 11 Attorneys at Law COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP 100 Willow Plaza, Suite 300 4550 California Ave., Second Floor 12 Visalia, California 93291 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Telephone: (559) 636-0200 Telephone: (661) 395-1000 13 Fax: (559) 636-9759 Fax: (661) 326-0418 lherr@hpblaw.net JHughesakleinlaw.com 14 rheaikemiya@hpblaw.net ikomar@kleinlaw.com Attorneys for KINGS RIVER WATER Attorneys for KINGS RIVER WATER 15 ASSOCIATION AND STEVEN HAUGEN ASSOCIATION AND STEVEN HAUGEN 16 Kenneth J. Richardson Aubrey Mauritson 17 PELTZER & RICHARDSON, LC RUDDELL STANTON BIXLER 3746 W. Mineral Kings Avenue MAURITSON & EVANS, LLP 18 Visalia CA 93291 1102 N. Chinowth Street Telephone 559-372-2400 Visalia CA 93291 19 Fax: 559-553-6221 Telephone: 559-733-5770 krichardson(4rlawcorp.eorn Fax: 559-733-4922 20 Attorneys for LAST CHANCE WATER amauritson@visalialaw.com DITCH COMPANY and PEOPLES DITCH Attorneys for TULARE LAKE BASIN WATER COMPANY STORAGE DISTRICT, TULARE LAKE 21 CANAL COMPANY, SOUTHEAST LAKE WATER COMPANY, LEMOORE CANAL & 22 IRRIGATION COMPANY, CORCORAN IRRIGATION COMPANY, CRESCENT 23 CANAL COMPANY, STINSON CANAL & IRRIGATION COMPANY, REED DITCH 24 COMPANY, JOHN HEINLEN MUTUAL WATER COMPANY, LOVELACE WATER 25 CORPORATION (FKA CIRCLE "L" FARMS) 26 27 28 2 1 Michael N. Nordstrom David Kahn Law Offices of Michael N. Nordstrom KAHN SOARES & CONWAY LLP 2 222 W. Lacey Blvd. 219 W. Douty Street Hanford CA 93230 Hanford CA 93230 3 Telephone: 559-584-3131 Telephone: 559-584-3337 Fax: 559-584-3132 Fax: 559-584-3348 4 nordlaw@nordstrom5.com dkahnekschanford.com Attorneys for BURRELL DITCH COMPANY, Attorneys for STRATFORD IRRIGATION 5 LIBERTY CANAL COMPANY, LIBERTY DISTRICT AND RIVERDALE IRRIGATION MILL RACE, UPPER SAN JOSE WATER DISTRICT COMPANY, EMPIRE WEST SIDE 6 IRRIGATION DISTRICT, LAGUNA IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 7 Marshall C. Whitney 8 WHITNEY THOMPSON & JEFFCOACH LLP 9 8050 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 110 Fresno CA 93711 10 Telephone: 559-753-2550 Fax: 559-753-2560 11 mwhitney@wtjlaw.com Attorneys for TULARE LAKE 12 RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 761 (aka COHN CENTRAL CONSOLIDATED 13 DISTRICT NO. 761) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3