Preview
E-FILED
5/12/2020 9:53 PM
Adam Keats (SBN 191157)
Superior Court of California
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC
County of Fresno
303 Sacramento St., Second Floor By: Louana Peterson, Deputy
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415-430-9403
Email: adam@keatslaw.org
Attorney for Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission,
AquAlliance, and Planning and Conservation League
additional counsel on following pages
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
11
12 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, a Case No.: 19CECG03887
California Water District,
13
14 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT
MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
15 vs.
16 ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE Date: August 18, 2020
MATTER of the Contract Between the United Time: 3:30 PM
17 Department: 502
States and Westlands Water District Providing
18 for Project Water Service, San Luis Unit and Assigned for All Purposes to:
Delta Division and Facilities Repayment, Hon. Alan M. Simpson, Dept. 502
19
Defendants. Action Filed: October 25, 2019
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 19CECG03887
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
additional counsel:
John Buse (SBN 163156)
Ross Middlemiss (SBN 323737)
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
1212 Broadway, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: 510-844-7100
Fax: 510-844-7150
Email: jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org
rmiddlemiss@biologicaldiversity.org
Attorneys for Defendant Center for Biological Diversity
STEPHAN C. VOLKER (CSB #63093)
ALEXIS E. KRIEG (CSB #254548)
STEPHANIE L. CLARKE (CSB #257961)
10 JAMEY M.B. VOLKER (CSB #273544)
LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER
11 1633 University Avenue
Berkeley, California 94703
12 Tel: 510/496-0600
Fax: 510/845-1255
13
14 Attorneys for Defendants North Coast Rivers Alliance, Winnemem Wintu Tribe,
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast
15 Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association
16 Roger B. Moore (SBN 159992)
LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE
17
337 17" St., Suite 211
18 Oakland, California 94612
Tel: 510-548-1401
19 Email: rbm@landwater.com
20 Thomas H. Keeling (SBN 114979)
FREEMAN FIRM
21
1818 Grand Canal Blvd, Suite 4
22 Stockton, California 95207
Tel: 209-474-1818
23 Fax: 209-474-1245
Email: tkeeling@freemanfirm.com
24
Attorneys for Defendants County of San Joaquin and County of Trinity
25
26
additional counsel on following page
27
28
2
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
additional counsel:
James Mark Myles (SBN 200823)
Office of the County Counsel
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
44 N San Joaquin St., Suite 679
Stockton, California 95202
Tel: 209-468-2980
Fax: 209-468-0315
Email: jmyles@sjgov.org
Attorney for Defendant County of San Joaquin
Margaret E. Long (SBN 227176)
Prentice, Long and Epperson, PC
2240 Court St.
10 Redding, CA 96001-2528
Tel: 530-691-0800
11 Fax: 530-691-0700
Email: margaret@plelawfirm.com
12
Attorney for Defendant County of Trinity
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TO EACH PARTY AND
THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED that on August 18, 2020, at 3:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at
the courtroom of Judge Alan Simpson, Department 502 of the Fresno County Courthouse, located at
1130 O St., Fresno, California, Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water
Commission, AquAlliance, Planning and Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, County
of San Joaquin, County of Trinity, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California
Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of
10 Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association in the above-entitled
11 matter will and hereby do move for an order granting their Motion for Stay of Proceedings. This
12 motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and
13 Authorities, and upon such further evidence or arguments as may be presented to the Court during or
14 prior to hearing.
15 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Tentative Rulings issued by the Civil Law and
16 Motion Judges will be accessible on the Court’s webpage at 3:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.
17 Those parties wishing to present oral argument must notify all other parties and the Law and
18 Motion Department in which the motion is to be heard no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day prior to
19 the hearing; otherwise, NOORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED AND THE TENTATIVE
20 RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER.
21 For those parties wishing to call in for the Tentative Ruling (559) 457-4943, the operator will
22 answer those calls ONLY BETWEEN 3:00 PM AND 4:00 PM.
23 To request oral argument you must call Department 502 directly at (559) 457-6319. If your call
24 is not answered simply leave a message stating your case name and number and that you are requesting
25 oral argument.
26 If you wish to appear by telephone, even if you are local, you must appear through COURT
27 CALL. You must call COURT CALL by 4:30 p.m. the day preceding the appearance at (310) 572-4670
28 or (888)88-COURT. There is a fee for using this service.
4
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
1 DATED: May 12, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC
Adam Keats
Attorney for Defendants California Water
Impact Network, California Indian Water
Commission, AquAlliance, and Planning and
Conservation League
DATED: May 12, 2020 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
t,
~ - Bou —
By: a
John Buse
Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity
10
11
DATED: May __, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER
12
13
By:
14 Stephan C. Volker
Attorneys for North Coast Rivers Alliance,
15
Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California
16 Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for
Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation
17 of Fishermen's Associations, and San
Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association
18
19
DATED: May __, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE
20
21 By:
22 Roger B. Moore
Attorney for County of San Joaquin and
23 County of Trinity
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
DATED: May 12, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC
By:
Adam Keats
Attorney for Defendants California Water
Impact Network, California Indian Water
Commission, AquAlliance, and Planning and
Conservation League
DATED: May __, 2020 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
By:
John Buse
Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity
10
11
DATED: May (2 2020 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER
Uo
1
13
By
14 Stephan C. Volker
Attorneys for North Coast Rivers Alliance,
15
Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California
16 Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for
Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation
17 of Fishermen's Associations, and San
Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association
18
19
DATED: May _, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE
20
21 By:
22 Roger B. Moore
Attorney for County of San Joaquin and
23 County of Trinity
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
1 DATED: May 12, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC
By:
Adam Keats
Attorney for Defendants California Water
Impact Network, California Indian Water
Commission, AquAlliance, and Planning and
Conservation League
DATED: May __, 2020 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
By:
John Buse
Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity
10
1
DATED: May __, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER
13
By:
14 Stephan C. Volker
Attorneys for North Coast Rivers Alliance,
15
Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California
16 Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for
Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation
17 of Fishermen's Associations, and San
Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association
18
19
DATED: May!'?, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE
20
21 By:
22 ‘oger B. Moore
Attorney for County of San Joaquin and
23 County of Trinity
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION
Il. ARGUMENT 11
A A STAY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND PREVENT THIS COURT
FROM TAKING ACTIONS AFFECTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE APPEALS. .......0:c:seeeeseseeseeee 11
THE APPEALS SEEK TO ESTABLISH THAT ALL DEFENDANTS FILED TIMELY ANSWERS, AND
MAY PARTICIPATE AS INTERESTED PARTIES IN THIS VALIDATION ACTION. -12
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES IN THE APPEALS AND POSSIBLE OUTCOMES IN THIS PROCEEDING ARE
IRRECONCILABLE, 14
10
ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF WESTLANDS’ CONTRACT
11
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ANCILLARY OR COLLATERAL TO THE MATTERS ON APPEAL. ........ 16
12
E. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A DISCRETIONARY STAY IS WARRANTED. ......c:csseseeseseseeceseeeeseseeeeseeees 17
13
14 Ill. CONCLUSION 19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268 13
Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625 17
Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District v. County of Santa Barbara (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 835
14
Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835 15
In re Marriage of Varner (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 932 15
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739 17
10
Litzmann v. Workmen’s Comp.App. Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 203 13
11
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287 17
12
Nelson v. Orosco (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 73 15, 16
13
Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892. 15
14
Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758 18
15
Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 448 16, 17
16
San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2017) 12
17
18
Cal.App.Sth 1124 19
Santa Clarita Organization
for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1
19
20
Cal.App.Sth 1084 14, 18
United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912... 13
21
22
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180 11, 12, 14, 15, 16
23
STATUTES
24
Code of Civil Procedure § 862 12, 14, 18
25
Code of Civil Procedure § 867 18
26
Code of Civil Procedure § 870 14, 15
27
Code of Civil Procedure § 916 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19
28
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
Code of Civil Procedure § 918 13,17
Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6 ..sssccsssscssssssusssssuussssssusssssiunssssiinssssnnssssinsssennesseee 8,9, 10, 12, 13
Government Code § 54950.
Government Code § 6103 10, 13
Labor Code § 1160.8 ..cccccceseeesesesceeesesseseesesesseeseeeseaseeasessseseaseeaseseeaseseeseeseseeseeseenseees 13
RULES
California Rules of Court 2.253 .. 10, 12
Fresno Superior Court Local Rule 4.1.13 9, 10, 12
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
I INTRODUCTION
Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission,
AquAlliance, Planning and Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, (“CWIN et al.”),
County of San Joaquin and County of Trinity (“Counties”), and North Coast Rivers Alliance,
Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners
Association (“NCRA et al.”)(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby jointly move to stay all proceedings in
10 the above-entitled case pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a), as
11 this case concerns matters embraced in or affected by related appeals pending in the Fifth District Court
12 of Appeal. In the alternative, Defendants request that this Court issue a discretionary stay pending the
13 resolution of the appeal.
14 On March 16, 2020, this Court adopted as final its tentative order finding three answers filed by
15 three different groups of answering parties to be untimely, filed respectively by CWIN et al., the
16 Counties, and NCRA et al. (“Order”).! The Court found the Answer filed by Central Delta Water
17 Agency and South Delta Water Agency to have been timely filed. The case is still active.
18 This Court’s rules mandate electronic filing, and provide, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §
19 1010.6 (b)(3), that any document received electronically by 11:59:59 p.m. on a court day “shall be
20 deemed filed on that Court day.” (Fresno Superior Court Local Rule 4.1.13.A, D.) Each of the three
21 answers found to be untimely were electronically received by the Court on December 16, 2019, and
22 served the same day. Nonetheless, the Court did not deem these answers to have been filed on this date
23 of electronic receipt. On December 17, 2019, the Clerk of the Court for the first time notified
24 Defendants of the need for further action on the answers electronically received the previous day. The
25 Clerk indicated that the answers of CWIN et al. and NCRA et al. needed payment of additional initial
26
27 ' The Order also rejected Plaintiffs’ motion to validate the Converted Contract referenced in the
validation complaint, concluding that this contract lacks material terms and identifying violations of the
28 Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950, et seq.) Defendants’ appeals challenge only the Order’s conclusion
that their answers were untimely.
9
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
filing fees to cover all named defendants in the pleadings. Although the Counties, as governmental
entities, were exempt from any filing fees under Government Code section 6103, the Clerk indicated
that a notation should appear on the cover page mentioning this statutory exemption. Each of the
Defendants promptly took the requested corrective action on the same day, and the Clerk then accepted
the answers for filing. However, rather than identifying December 16, 2019 as the effective date of
filing, the Clerk stamped them as having been filed a day later, on December 17, 2019.
In its otherwise unsuccessful Motion for Validation of Contract dated December 30, 2019,
Plaintiff Westlands Water District argued that these three answers were not timely filed, stating that the
three answers “were filed after the December 16, 2019, deadline set in the Summons, and thus, are time
10 barred from consideration by this Court.” (Mem. of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for
11 Validation of Contract, December 30, 2019, at p. 17.) Westlands further contended that the parties
12 named in the three answers “have lost their opportunity to challenge Westlands’ validation action, and
13 should be dismissed from this case.” (/d. at p. 18.)
14 Along with their oppositions to Westlands’ motion, Defendants documented that the Court
15 electronically received each of the three challenged answers on December 16, 2019. (Keats, Robancho,
16 and Krieg Declarations in Opposition to Motion to Validate.) At the motion hearing on February 27,
17 2020, Defendants argued that under the governing code provision and complementary state and local
18 court rules, the effective date of filing should have been deemed December 16, 2019, the date the Court
19 electronically received the answers. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6 (b)(3); California Rules of
20 Court, § 2.253 (b)(6); Local Rule 4.1.13.D; Reporter’s Transcript (RT), pp. 16-25.) They also argued
21 that despite corrective actions later taken at the Clerk’s request, deeming the answers to be filed the
22 next day would contravene the clear statutory directive and amount to an error of law. (RT, pp. 18-25.)
23 After briefing and argument, this Court issued its Order denying the substance of Westlands”
24 motion to validate the contract but agreeing with Westlands that the three answers were untimely. The
25 Order asserted the answers were filed after the December 16, 2019, answer deadline in Westlands’
26
27
28
10
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
summons. The Order did not address Defendants’ arguments that under the applicable code provision
and court rules, the effective date of filing was on, rather than after, December 16, 2019.7
Notice of Entry of the Order was filed on April 10, 2020. A Notice of Appeal was e-filed and
served by NCRA et al. on April 13, 2020. Separate Notices of Appeal were e-filed and served by the
Counties and CWIN et al. on April 14, 2020.
Because the possible results of Defendants’ appeals are irreconcilable with possible rulings in
further proceedings in this matter, and because possible rulings in these proceedings could make the
appeals futile, an automatic stay is required. In the alternative, Defendants request this Court issue a
stay under its discretion.
10 IL. ARGUMENT
11 A A Stay is Necessary to Protect Appellate Jurisdiction and Prevent This Court from
Taking Actions Affecting the Effectiveness of the Appeals.
12
California Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part,
13
subject to exceptions not relevant here:
14
(a) [T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon
15 the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein
or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but
16
the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action
17 and not affected by the judgment.
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).) The purpose of section 916(a) is to “protect the appellate court’s
18
jurisdiction” by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v.
19
Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) The stay prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile
20
by altering the judgment or conducting other proceedings that may affect it. (/bid.) In Varian, the
21
California Supreme Court set forth an analytical roadmap for determining whether a trial court
22
proceeding “affects the effectiveness of an appeal” (id. at p. 190), noting that each of three
23
circumstances would affect the effectiveness of an appeal and therefore necessitate an automatic stay:
24
(1) a trial court proceeding that directly or indirectly seeks to enforce, vacate, or modify the appealed
25
26
27 ? The Counties’ opposition to Westlands’ motion also argued that the summons, which set the
December 16, 2019 answer date, was prejudicially defective because it failed to notify foreseeably
28 interested parties and accurately define the matter to be validated. (Counties’ opposition, pp. 11-12.)
The Order did not address this argument.
11
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
judgment, or would substantially interfere with the appellate court’s ability to conduct the appeal
(Ibid.); (2) a trial court proceeding in which “the possible outcomes on appeal and the actual or possible
results of the proceeding are irreconcilable” (ibid); and (3) a trial court proceeding for which “the very
purpose of the appeal is to avoid the need for that proceeding.” (bid.)
On the other hand, “an appeal does not stay proceedings on ancillary or collateral matters which
do not affect the judgment or order on appeal even though the proceedings may render the appeal moot.
(Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 191.) A proceeding following an appealed judgment or order is
considered ancillary or collateral to the appeal, despite its potential effect on the appeal, if the
proceeding could or would have occurred regardless of the outcome of the appeal. (/bid.)
B The Appeals Seek to Establish that All Defendants Filed Timely Answers, and May
10 Participate as Interested Parties in this Validation Action.
11 To state the obvious, this Court need not agree with the grounds for appeal to conclude that a
12 stay must be imposed; otherwise no appeal would even be necessary. Nonetheless, identifying the
13 issue on appeal can assist this Court’s determination of whether the trial court proceeding affects the
14 effectiveness of the appeals.
15 Should Defendants prevail in their appeals, they will establish the timeliness of their answers,
16 securing the right to “appear and contest the legality or validity of the matter sought to be determined.”
17 (Code Civ. Proc., § 862.) All answers at issue were electronically received by the Court on December
18 16, 2019, the answer date in Westlands’ summons. Even if that summons manages to withstand
19 Defendants’ procedural challenges, all these answers were clearly timely under the clear statutory
20 definition of the effective filing date. Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 (b)(3) provides that
21 “TaJny document received electronically by the court between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:59 p.m. on a court
22 day shall be deemed filed on that court day.” Fresno County Superior Court Local Rule 4.1.13.D
23 provides that “[flor purposes of electronic filing of documents, pursuant to Code of Civil
24 Procedure § 1010.6(b)(3), any document received electronically by the Court between 12:00 a.m.
25 and 11:59.59 p.m. ona court day shall be deemed filed on that court day.” That rule also notes that
26 "[t]his provision concerns only the method and the effective date of filing; any document that is
27 electronically filed must satisfy all other legal filing deadlines and requirements.” (/d.) Likewise, rule
28 2.253(b)(6) of the California Rule of Court provides that “the effective date of filing of any document
12
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
received electronically is that prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6. This concerns
only the effective date of filing.”
Here the “effective date of filing” is exactly what is at issue on appeal. Under section 1010.6
(b)(3) and these consistent state and local court rules, the “effective date” of the answers is December
16, 2019, when the Court electronically received them. Subsequent steps taken in response to the
clerk’s communication the next day—such as the Counties’ addition ofa single line to their caption
explicitly noting their fee exemption, and other Defendants’ payment of additional fees—could not
have lawfully delayed the effective date of filing.*
Moreover, even if court rules had suggested otherwise, which they do not, such rules could not
10 override the statute governing the effective date of filing. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(e),(f)
11 (“[t]hese rules shall conform to the condition set forth in this section’”).) Cases addressing the effective
12 date of filings to meet statutory limitations periods are instructive. In Carlson v. State of California
13 Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, the superior court clerk had rejected a filing
14 missing a certificate required under a local rule. The appellate court deemed the rejected filing
15 effective to meet the limitations period, concluding that “[flor purposes of the statute of limitations,
16 ‘filing’ means delivery to the clerk during business hours.” (68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1273.) The superior
17 court could not condition filing of the complaint on local rule requirements; so long as a complaint
18 complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file. (68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1272-
19 1273.)
20 Other cases have reached similar conclusions. (See, e.g., United Farm Workers of America v.
21 Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 (‘“‘filing’ for purposes of compliance with
22 the time limits of Labor Code section 1160.8 means what it does in all other contexts: actual delivery
23 of the petition to the clerk at his place of business during office hours. [Citations.] ...Rejection of the
24 petition by the clerk ... for a technical defect cannot undo a ‘filing’ that has already occurred”);
25 Litzmann v. Workmen’s Comp.App. Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 203, 205 (deeming petition to have
26
27 > Although Counties are exempt from filing fees under Government Code section 6103,
neither that code provision nor court rules appear to even expressly require that the exemption be listed
28 on a caption, much less change the effective filing. See, e.g., Rule of Court 2.111, governing caption
pages of papers filed in trial courts.
13
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
been filed on the date deposited with the clerk, despite its rejection for technical deficiencies, and
noting that “[t]here is a strong policy in favor of hearing cases on their merits and against depriving a
party of his right of appeal because of technical noncompliance in matters of form’”).)
Cc Possible Outcomes in the Appeals and Possible Outcomes in this Proceeding are
Irreconcilable.
An automatic stay of this proceeding is necessary because any further activity in this proceeding
could affect the effectiveness of the appeals in the second manner described in Varian: the possible
outcomes in this proceeding and the appeals could be irreconcilable. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p.
190.) Most obviously, it is possible that this Court could resolve this proceeding and issue a judgment
finding Westlands’ contract to be valid, prior to a ruling by the Court of Appeal on Defendants’
10 appeals. Such a judgment would directly affect the effectiveness of the appeals, preventing the Court
11 of Appeal from first confirming Defendants’ right to participate in the action and challenge the validity
12 of Westlands’ contract. This is due to the nature of validation proceedings, which allow one, and only
13 one, court ruling on the validity of an agency’s contracts. (See, e.g., Embarcadero Municipal
14 Improvement District v. County of Santa Barbara (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 835, 842 (cases interpreting
15 the validation statutes “have placed great importance on the need for a single dispositive final
16 judgment”); Code Civ. Proc., § 870.) If the trial court attempted to adjudicate the merits and proceed to
17 judgment on the validity of the contract prior to the Court of Appeal resolving the appeals, it would
18 conflict with the Court of Appeal’s effective opportunity to restore Defendants’ right to challenge the
19 “legality or validity” of the contract in this action, even if it agrees that Defendants’ answers are timely.
20 (Code Civ. Proc., § 862.) The appeals would be rendered futile by the further proceedings in the trial
21 court while the appeals were pending—exactly what section 916(a)’s automatic stay is designed to
22 prevent.
23 The primary purpose of validation proceedings is to “provide much-needed certainty to the
24 agency itself as well as to all third parties who would be hesitant to contract with or provide financing
25 to the agency absent that certainty.” (Santa Clarita Organization
for Planning & Environment v.
26 Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.Sth 1084, 1096.) Validation actions “are in rem
27 proceedings that, once proper constructive notice is given, result in a judgment that is ‘binding ...
28 against the world’.” (/d., quoting Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources
14
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
(2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 921.) A contract found valid by a court—such as this Court, in this
proceeding—would be deemed forever valid, immune from any future challenges to its validity. Ibid.)
The broad reach of Code of Civil Procedure section 870, which deems validation judgments “forever
binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been
adjudicated, against the agency and against all other persons,” compels validation defendants to protect
their interests in potential future proceedings. (Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th
835, 844-845.) The judgment would be binding against all subsequent challenges, even those brought
by Defendants who were previously—however improperly—removed from the litigation.
The Supreme Court in Varian gave examples where possible outcomes in an appeal and a trial
10 court proceeding could be irreconcilable, necessitating a stay of the trial court proceeding pending the
11 resolution of the appeal. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 190.) In the first example, “an appeal from
12 the denial ofa motion to vacate a spousal support order precludes the trial court from terminating its
13 jurisdiction over spousal support because the termination of jurisdiction is irreconcilable with possible
14 outcomes on appeal.” (/bid, citing In re Marriage of Varner (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 932, 937.) There,
15 because the appeal could possibly result in a remand to the trial court, the trial court could not terminate
16 its jurisdiction over the matter until after the resolution of the appeal. Similarly, here, Defendants’
17 appeals on the timeliness of their answers may well result in remand back to this Court, affirming the
18 right of Defendants to challenge the legality or validity of Westlands’ contract and have their defenses
19 adjudicated prior to this Court’s disposition of the action. By contrast, proceeding in Defendants’
20 absence in this Court while their appeals remain pending could forever deprive them of that
21 opportunity. Moreover, if the validation merits adjudicated in Defendants’ absence result in a judgment
22 validating Westlands’ contract, it could potentially foreclose them, and all others, from all future
23 challenges to the validity of the contract. (See, Code Civ. Proc., § 870; Friedland, 62 Cal.App.4th 835,
24 at pp. 844-845.) The two possible outcomes are plainly irreconcilable.
25 The Supreme Court’s second example of potentially irreconcilable results regards plaintiffs who
26 appealed “a judgment declaring that they take nothing by way ofa deficiency, after a judicial
27 foreclosure sale of real property...” (Nelson v. Orosco (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 73, 75; Varian, supra,
28 35 Cal.4th at p. 190.) The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking to set aside the foreclosure
15
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
sale, and the motion was heard and granted by the trial court. (Nelson, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 76.) The
appellate court then heard both the plaintiffs’ appeal of the earlier deficiency judgment, and the
defendants’ appeal of the trial court’s granting of the motion to set aside the foreclosure sale. The
appellate court found that the appeal prevented the trial court from hearing the motion to set aside the
foreclosure sale, because it was possible that the appellate court would affirm the earlier order denying
the plaintiffa deficiency judgment, “forever den[ying] him such relief.” (/d. at p. 80.) Such a result
was irreconcilable with the trial court’s granting a motion to set aside the foreclosure sale, as that order
“had the effect of permitting another such sale,” a result that could be precluded by the appeal. (/bid.)
The appeals at issue here are not materially different. It is possible that the appellate court will
10 reverse this Court and find that Defendants’ answers were timely filed, enabling them to pursue their
11 challenges to the validity of Westlands’ contract. If further proceedings take place before the Court of
12 Appeal issues its ruling, and a judgment is entered in favor of Westlands, validating its contract, an
13 irreconcilable result will have been reached. Proceedings on the merits of the validation of the contract
14 must therefore be automatically stayed pursuant to section 916(a), pending resolution of Defendants’
15 appeals.
D. Any Further Proceedings Regarding the Validity of Westlands’ Contract Cannot
16 be Considered Ancillary or Collateral to the Matters on Appeal.
17 Further proceedings regarding the validity of Westlands’ contract cannot be considered ancillary
18 or collateral matters not affecting the order that is on appeal. (See Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 191.)
19 Examples of matters considered ancillary or collateral include: (1) a motion for a new trial, (2) a
20 proceeding to expunge a lis pendens, or (3) a proceeding that could or would have occurred regardless
21 of the outcome of the appeal (such as post-order proceedings independent of and after an appeal from
22 the denial ofa preliminary injunction, or an appeal from an order denying a motion to disqualify
23 opposing counsel). (/d. at p. 191 [citations omitted].)* None of these examples is remotely similar to
24 the facts here, where Defendants have appealed an order depriving them of the opportunity to
25
26
4 Even in these instances, however, a party can ask the trial court in its discretion to stay the
27
proceedings, and if that request is denied, the party can request the stay from the appellate court by writ
28 of supersedeas or other discretionary stay. (See, e.g., Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th
448, 453-455.)
16
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
participate in the trial court proceedings. Given that the matter on appeal is Defendants’ right to contest
the merits of the validity of Westlands’ contract and present their own defenses, further proceedings on
those very merits cannot be considered ancillary or collateral to the matter on appeal. As such, further
proceedings must be stayed.
E In the Alternative, a Discretionary Stay is Warranted.
If this Court does not issue an automatic stay pursuant to section 916, Defendants seek a
discretionary stay to promote judicial efficiency, prevent inconsistent decisions, and maintain the status
quo pending resolution of the appeals. The statutory scheme presumes that perfecting an appeal
automatically stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from. (Elsea v.
Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629.) Nonetheless, the trial court, in its discretion, may stay the
10
enforcement of any judgment or order, whether or not an appeal will be taken from the judgment or
11
order and whether or not a notice of appeal has been filed. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 918, subd. (a), (c).)
12
Trial courts have the inherent authority to stay an action when appropriate. (Jordache Enterprises, Inc.
13
v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 762 [“[T]he case management tools available
14
to trial courts, including the inherent authority to stay an action when appropriate ... can overcome
15
problems of simultaneous litigation if they do occur.”]; see also Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior
16
Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 301-302 [court stayed case pending resolution of third party suit to
17
eliminate risk of inconsistencies].)
18
Similar to an automatic stay under section 916, one of the purposes ofa discretionary stay is to
19
“maintain the status quo pending an appeal.” (Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 448,
20
454.) The court in Reed articulated the difference between an automatic stay and a discretionary stay,
21
stating the question is whether “the trial must be stayed, automatically, under section 916, subdivision
22
(a), to prevent futility of the appeal, or whether the trial should be stayed, in the discretion of the trial or
23
appellate court, to maintain the status quo pending the appeal.” (Reed, at p. 454 [emphasis in
24
original].) Reed recognized there may be a situation where an automatic stay is not required because
25
the matter is ancillary to the judgment, such as disqualification of opposing counsel, but a trial court
26
should still issue a stay, in its discretion, to maintain the status quo pending the appeal. (Reed, at pp.
27
454-455.)
28
17
Case No. 34-2018-00246183
Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings
Here, the Court ruled in its Order that Defendants’ answers were not timely, but no such ruling
was made of the answers filed by Central Delta Water Agency and South Delta Water Agency. These
parties thus remain in the proceedings, actively challenging the validity of Westlands’ contract. A
decision by this Court rejecting the merits of these parties’ challenge, affirming the validity of the
contract and precluding any further challenges (since such a judgment is forever “binding ... against the
world” (Santa Clarita Organization
for Planning & Environment, supra, | Cal.App.Sth at p. 1096),
would create the potential for inconsistent and conflicting opinions, if and when Defendants prevail on
appeal and their right to challenge the contract is affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Therefore, if this
Court finds that the matter is not automatically stayed pursuant to section 916(a), it should stay the case
10 anyway, in its discretion, to preserve the status quo and prevent the very real possibility of inconsistent
11 rulings.
12 Westlands may argue that a stay would unnecessarily delay the validation proceedings, which
13 are to be “speedily heard and determined.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 867.) But the specific rights of
14 Defendants to have their challenges to Westlands’ contract heard after filing timely answers (Code Civ.
15 Proc., § 862) must take precedence over the general statutory scheme for speedy resolution ofa
16 validation proceeding. Notwithstanding that general provision, the speed of validation actions depends
17 heavily on their facts and circumstances. Complex water contract validation cases cannot be presumed
18 to be capable of resolution without prematurity or prejudice in a matter of months. (See, e.g.,
19 Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 790.)
20 Surely Westlands was aware that attacking some, but not all, defendants on timeliness grounds
21 while simultaneously rushing to validate its proposed contract would create the scenario it now finds
22 itself in, of potentially irreconcilable and/or inconsistent opinions that require the proceedings be stayed
23 pending appeal. Resolving the appeals first is necessary to preserve Defendants’ statutory right to
24 participate in this action. Although the sharply defined timeliness issue pending on appeal can and
25 should be promptly resolved, the impact ofa stay on the speed of reaching the validation merits here
26 warrants no consideration. On the contrary, premature disposition of the action in this Court, without
27 fir
Preview
E-FILED 5/12/2020 9:53 PM Adam Keats (SBN 191157) Superior Court of California LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC County of Fresno 303 Sacramento St., Second Floor By: Louana Peterson, Deputy San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-430-9403 Email: adam@keatslaw.org Attorney for Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission, AquAlliance, and Planning and Conservation League additional counsel on following pages SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 11 12 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, a Case No.: 19CECG03887 California Water District, 13 14 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 15 vs. 16 ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE Date: August 18, 2020 MATTER of the Contract Between the United Time: 3:30 PM 17 Department: 502 States and Westlands Water District Providing 18 for Project Water Service, San Luis Unit and Assigned for All Purposes to: Delta Division and Facilities Repayment, Hon. Alan M. Simpson, Dept. 502 19 Defendants. Action Filed: October 25, 2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 19CECG03887 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings additional counsel: John Buse (SBN 163156) Ross Middlemiss (SBN 323737) CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: 510-844-7100 Fax: 510-844-7150 Email: jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org rmiddlemiss@biologicaldiversity.org Attorneys for Defendant Center for Biological Diversity STEPHAN C. VOLKER (CSB #63093) ALEXIS E. KRIEG (CSB #254548) STEPHANIE L. CLARKE (CSB #257961) 10 JAMEY M.B. VOLKER (CSB #273544) LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER 11 1633 University Avenue Berkeley, California 94703 12 Tel: 510/496-0600 Fax: 510/845-1255 13 14 Attorneys for Defendants North Coast Rivers Alliance, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast 15 Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association 16 Roger B. Moore (SBN 159992) LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE 17 337 17" St., Suite 211 18 Oakland, California 94612 Tel: 510-548-1401 19 Email: rbm@landwater.com 20 Thomas H. Keeling (SBN 114979) FREEMAN FIRM 21 1818 Grand Canal Blvd, Suite 4 22 Stockton, California 95207 Tel: 209-474-1818 23 Fax: 209-474-1245 Email: tkeeling@freemanfirm.com 24 Attorneys for Defendants County of San Joaquin and County of Trinity 25 26 additional counsel on following page 27 28 2 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings additional counsel: James Mark Myles (SBN 200823) Office of the County Counsel COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 44 N San Joaquin St., Suite 679 Stockton, California 95202 Tel: 209-468-2980 Fax: 209-468-0315 Email: jmyles@sjgov.org Attorney for Defendant County of San Joaquin Margaret E. Long (SBN 227176) Prentice, Long and Epperson, PC 2240 Court St. 10 Redding, CA 96001-2528 Tel: 530-691-0800 11 Fax: 530-691-0700 Email: margaret@plelawfirm.com 12 Attorney for Defendant County of Trinity 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TO EACH PARTY AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that on August 18, 2020, at 3:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the courtroom of Judge Alan Simpson, Department 502 of the Fresno County Courthouse, located at 1130 O St., Fresno, California, Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission, AquAlliance, Planning and Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, County of San Joaquin, County of Trinity, North Coast Rivers Alliance, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of 10 Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association in the above-entitled 11 matter will and hereby do move for an order granting their Motion for Stay of Proceedings. This 12 motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and 13 Authorities, and upon such further evidence or arguments as may be presented to the Court during or 14 prior to hearing. 15 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Tentative Rulings issued by the Civil Law and 16 Motion Judges will be accessible on the Court’s webpage at 3:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. 17 Those parties wishing to present oral argument must notify all other parties and the Law and 18 Motion Department in which the motion is to be heard no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day prior to 19 the hearing; otherwise, NOORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED AND THE TENTATIVE 20 RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER. 21 For those parties wishing to call in for the Tentative Ruling (559) 457-4943, the operator will 22 answer those calls ONLY BETWEEN 3:00 PM AND 4:00 PM. 23 To request oral argument you must call Department 502 directly at (559) 457-6319. If your call 24 is not answered simply leave a message stating your case name and number and that you are requesting 25 oral argument. 26 If you wish to appear by telephone, even if you are local, you must appear through COURT 27 CALL. You must call COURT CALL by 4:30 p.m. the day preceding the appearance at (310) 572-4670 28 or (888)88-COURT. There is a fee for using this service. 4 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings 1 DATED: May 12, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC Adam Keats Attorney for Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission, AquAlliance, and Planning and Conservation League DATED: May 12, 2020 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY t, ~ - Bou — By: a John Buse Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity 10 11 DATED: May __, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER 12 13 By: 14 Stephan C. Volker Attorneys for North Coast Rivers Alliance, 15 Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California 16 Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation 17 of Fishermen's Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association 18 19 DATED: May __, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE 20 21 By: 22 Roger B. Moore Attorney for County of San Joaquin and 23 County of Trinity 24 25 26 27 28 5 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings DATED: May 12, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC By: Adam Keats Attorney for Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission, AquAlliance, and Planning and Conservation League DATED: May __, 2020 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY By: John Buse Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity 10 11 DATED: May (2 2020 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER Uo 1 13 By 14 Stephan C. Volker Attorneys for North Coast Rivers Alliance, 15 Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California 16 Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation 17 of Fishermen's Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association 18 19 DATED: May _, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE 20 21 By: 22 Roger B. Moore Attorney for County of San Joaquin and 23 County of Trinity 24 25 26 27 28 5 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings 1 DATED: May 12, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ADAM KEATS, PC By: Adam Keats Attorney for Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission, AquAlliance, and Planning and Conservation League DATED: May __, 2020 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY By: John Buse Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity 10 1 DATED: May __, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHAN C. VOLKER 13 By: 14 Stephan C. Volker Attorneys for North Coast Rivers Alliance, 15 Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California 16 Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation 17 of Fishermen's Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association 18 19 DATED: May!'?, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF ROGER B. MOORE 20 21 By: 22 ‘oger B. Moore Attorney for County of San Joaquin and 23 County of Trinity 24 25 26 27 28 5 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION Il. ARGUMENT 11 A A STAY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND PREVENT THIS COURT FROM TAKING ACTIONS AFFECTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE APPEALS. .......0:c:seeeeseseeseeee 11 THE APPEALS SEEK TO ESTABLISH THAT ALL DEFENDANTS FILED TIMELY ANSWERS, AND MAY PARTICIPATE AS INTERESTED PARTIES IN THIS VALIDATION ACTION. -12 POSSIBLE OUTCOMES IN THE APPEALS AND POSSIBLE OUTCOMES IN THIS PROCEEDING ARE IRRECONCILABLE, 14 10 ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF WESTLANDS’ CONTRACT 11 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ANCILLARY OR COLLATERAL TO THE MATTERS ON APPEAL. ........ 16 12 E. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A DISCRETIONARY STAY IS WARRANTED. ......c:csseseeseseseeceseeeeseseeeeseeees 17 13 14 Ill. CONCLUSION 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Carlson v. State of California Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268 13 Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625 17 Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District v. County of Santa Barbara (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 835 14 Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835 15 In re Marriage of Varner (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 932 15 Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739 17 10 Litzmann v. Workmen’s Comp.App. Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 203 13 11 Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287 17 12 Nelson v. Orosco (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 73 15, 16 13 Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892. 15 14 Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758 18 15 Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 448 16, 17 16 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2017) 12 17 18 Cal.App.Sth 1124 19 Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & Environment v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 19 20 Cal.App.Sth 1084 14, 18 United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912... 13 21 22 Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 23 STATUTES 24 Code of Civil Procedure § 862 12, 14, 18 25 Code of Civil Procedure § 867 18 26 Code of Civil Procedure § 870 14, 15 27 Code of Civil Procedure § 916 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 28 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings Code of Civil Procedure § 918 13,17 Code of Civil Procedure § 1010.6 ..sssccsssscssssssusssssuussssssusssssiunssssiinssssnnssssinsssennesseee 8,9, 10, 12, 13 Government Code § 54950. Government Code § 6103 10, 13 Labor Code § 1160.8 ..cccccceseeesesesceeesesseseesesesseeseeeseaseeasessseseaseeaseseeaseseeseeseseeseeseenseees 13 RULES California Rules of Court 2.253 .. 10, 12 Fresno Superior Court Local Rule 4.1.13 9, 10, 12 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS I INTRODUCTION Defendants California Water Impact Network, California Indian Water Commission, AquAlliance, Planning and Conservation League, Center for Biological Diversity, (“CWIN et al.”), County of San Joaquin and County of Trinity (“Counties”), and North Coast Rivers Alliance, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association (“NCRA et al.”)(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby jointly move to stay all proceedings in 10 the above-entitled case pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a), as 11 this case concerns matters embraced in or affected by related appeals pending in the Fifth District Court 12 of Appeal. In the alternative, Defendants request that this Court issue a discretionary stay pending the 13 resolution of the appeal. 14 On March 16, 2020, this Court adopted as final its tentative order finding three answers filed by 15 three different groups of answering parties to be untimely, filed respectively by CWIN et al., the 16 Counties, and NCRA et al. (“Order”).! The Court found the Answer filed by Central Delta Water 17 Agency and South Delta Water Agency to have been timely filed. The case is still active. 18 This Court’s rules mandate electronic filing, and provide, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 19 1010.6 (b)(3), that any document received electronically by 11:59:59 p.m. on a court day “shall be 20 deemed filed on that Court day.” (Fresno Superior Court Local Rule 4.1.13.A, D.) Each of the three 21 answers found to be untimely were electronically received by the Court on December 16, 2019, and 22 served the same day. Nonetheless, the Court did not deem these answers to have been filed on this date 23 of electronic receipt. On December 17, 2019, the Clerk of the Court for the first time notified 24 Defendants of the need for further action on the answers electronically received the previous day. The 25 Clerk indicated that the answers of CWIN et al. and NCRA et al. needed payment of additional initial 26 27 ' The Order also rejected Plaintiffs’ motion to validate the Converted Contract referenced in the validation complaint, concluding that this contract lacks material terms and identifying violations of the 28 Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950, et seq.) Defendants’ appeals challenge only the Order’s conclusion that their answers were untimely. 9 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings filing fees to cover all named defendants in the pleadings. Although the Counties, as governmental entities, were exempt from any filing fees under Government Code section 6103, the Clerk indicated that a notation should appear on the cover page mentioning this statutory exemption. Each of the Defendants promptly took the requested corrective action on the same day, and the Clerk then accepted the answers for filing. However, rather than identifying December 16, 2019 as the effective date of filing, the Clerk stamped them as having been filed a day later, on December 17, 2019. In its otherwise unsuccessful Motion for Validation of Contract dated December 30, 2019, Plaintiff Westlands Water District argued that these three answers were not timely filed, stating that the three answers “were filed after the December 16, 2019, deadline set in the Summons, and thus, are time 10 barred from consideration by this Court.” (Mem. of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for 11 Validation of Contract, December 30, 2019, at p. 17.) Westlands further contended that the parties 12 named in the three answers “have lost their opportunity to challenge Westlands’ validation action, and 13 should be dismissed from this case.” (/d. at p. 18.) 14 Along with their oppositions to Westlands’ motion, Defendants documented that the Court 15 electronically received each of the three challenged answers on December 16, 2019. (Keats, Robancho, 16 and Krieg Declarations in Opposition to Motion to Validate.) At the motion hearing on February 27, 17 2020, Defendants argued that under the governing code provision and complementary state and local 18 court rules, the effective date of filing should have been deemed December 16, 2019, the date the Court 19 electronically received the answers. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6 (b)(3); California Rules of 20 Court, § 2.253 (b)(6); Local Rule 4.1.13.D; Reporter’s Transcript (RT), pp. 16-25.) They also argued 21 that despite corrective actions later taken at the Clerk’s request, deeming the answers to be filed the 22 next day would contravene the clear statutory directive and amount to an error of law. (RT, pp. 18-25.) 23 After briefing and argument, this Court issued its Order denying the substance of Westlands” 24 motion to validate the contract but agreeing with Westlands that the three answers were untimely. The 25 Order asserted the answers were filed after the December 16, 2019, answer deadline in Westlands’ 26 27 28 10 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings summons. The Order did not address Defendants’ arguments that under the applicable code provision and court rules, the effective date of filing was on, rather than after, December 16, 2019.7 Notice of Entry of the Order was filed on April 10, 2020. A Notice of Appeal was e-filed and served by NCRA et al. on April 13, 2020. Separate Notices of Appeal were e-filed and served by the Counties and CWIN et al. on April 14, 2020. Because the possible results of Defendants’ appeals are irreconcilable with possible rulings in further proceedings in this matter, and because possible rulings in these proceedings could make the appeals futile, an automatic stay is required. In the alternative, Defendants request this Court issue a stay under its discretion. 10 IL. ARGUMENT 11 A A Stay is Necessary to Protect Appellate Jurisdiction and Prevent This Court from Taking Actions Affecting the Effectiveness of the Appeals. 12 California Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part, 13 subject to exceptions not relevant here: 14 (a) [T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon 15 the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but 16 the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action 17 and not affected by the judgment. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).) The purpose of section 916(a) is to “protect the appellate court’s 18 jurisdiction” by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. 19 Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) The stay prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile 20 by altering the judgment or conducting other proceedings that may affect it. (/bid.) In Varian, the 21 California Supreme Court set forth an analytical roadmap for determining whether a trial court 22 proceeding “affects the effectiveness of an appeal” (id. at p. 190), noting that each of three 23 circumstances would affect the effectiveness of an appeal and therefore necessitate an automatic stay: 24 (1) a trial court proceeding that directly or indirectly seeks to enforce, vacate, or modify the appealed 25 26 27 ? The Counties’ opposition to Westlands’ motion also argued that the summons, which set the December 16, 2019 answer date, was prejudicially defective because it failed to notify foreseeably 28 interested parties and accurately define the matter to be validated. (Counties’ opposition, pp. 11-12.) The Order did not address this argument. 11 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings judgment, or would substantially interfere with the appellate court’s ability to conduct the appeal (Ibid.); (2) a trial court proceeding in which “the possible outcomes on appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are irreconcilable” (ibid); and (3) a trial court proceeding for which “the very purpose of the appeal is to avoid the need for that proceeding.” (bid.) On the other hand, “an appeal does not stay proceedings on ancillary or collateral matters which do not affect the judgment or order on appeal even though the proceedings may render the appeal moot. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 191.) A proceeding following an appealed judgment or order is considered ancillary or collateral to the appeal, despite its potential effect on the appeal, if the proceeding could or would have occurred regardless of the outcome of the appeal. (/bid.) B The Appeals Seek to Establish that All Defendants Filed Timely Answers, and May 10 Participate as Interested Parties in this Validation Action. 11 To state the obvious, this Court need not agree with the grounds for appeal to conclude that a 12 stay must be imposed; otherwise no appeal would even be necessary. Nonetheless, identifying the 13 issue on appeal can assist this Court’s determination of whether the trial court proceeding affects the 14 effectiveness of the appeals. 15 Should Defendants prevail in their appeals, they will establish the timeliness of their answers, 16 securing the right to “appear and contest the legality or validity of the matter sought to be determined.” 17 (Code Civ. Proc., § 862.) All answers at issue were electronically received by the Court on December 18 16, 2019, the answer date in Westlands’ summons. Even if that summons manages to withstand 19 Defendants’ procedural challenges, all these answers were clearly timely under the clear statutory 20 definition of the effective filing date. Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 (b)(3) provides that 21 “TaJny document received electronically by the court between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:59 p.m. on a court 22 day shall be deemed filed on that court day.” Fresno County Superior Court Local Rule 4.1.13.D 23 provides that “[flor purposes of electronic filing of documents, pursuant to Code of Civil 24 Procedure § 1010.6(b)(3), any document received electronically by the Court between 12:00 a.m. 25 and 11:59.59 p.m. ona court day shall be deemed filed on that court day.” That rule also notes that 26 "[t]his provision concerns only the method and the effective date of filing; any document that is 27 electronically filed must satisfy all other legal filing deadlines and requirements.” (/d.) Likewise, rule 28 2.253(b)(6) of the California Rule of Court provides that “the effective date of filing of any document 12 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings received electronically is that prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6. This concerns only the effective date of filing.” Here the “effective date of filing” is exactly what is at issue on appeal. Under section 1010.6 (b)(3) and these consistent state and local court rules, the “effective date” of the answers is December 16, 2019, when the Court electronically received them. Subsequent steps taken in response to the clerk’s communication the next day—such as the Counties’ addition ofa single line to their caption explicitly noting their fee exemption, and other Defendants’ payment of additional fees—could not have lawfully delayed the effective date of filing.* Moreover, even if court rules had suggested otherwise, which they do not, such rules could not 10 override the statute governing the effective date of filing. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(e),(f) 11 (“[t]hese rules shall conform to the condition set forth in this section’”).) Cases addressing the effective 12 date of filings to meet statutory limitations periods are instructive. In Carlson v. State of California 13 Department of Fish & Game (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1268, the superior court clerk had rejected a filing 14 missing a certificate required under a local rule. The appellate court deemed the rejected filing 15 effective to meet the limitations period, concluding that “[flor purposes of the statute of limitations, 16 ‘filing’ means delivery to the clerk during business hours.” (68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1273.) The superior 17 court could not condition filing of the complaint on local rule requirements; so long as a complaint 18 complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial duty to file. (68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1272- 19 1273.) 20 Other cases have reached similar conclusions. (See, e.g., United Farm Workers of America v. 21 Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 912, 918 (‘“‘filing’ for purposes of compliance with 22 the time limits of Labor Code section 1160.8 means what it does in all other contexts: actual delivery 23 of the petition to the clerk at his place of business during office hours. [Citations.] ...Rejection of the 24 petition by the clerk ... for a technical defect cannot undo a ‘filing’ that has already occurred”); 25 Litzmann v. Workmen’s Comp.App. Bd. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 203, 205 (deeming petition to have 26 27 > Although Counties are exempt from filing fees under Government Code section 6103, neither that code provision nor court rules appear to even expressly require that the exemption be listed 28 on a caption, much less change the effective filing. See, e.g., Rule of Court 2.111, governing caption pages of papers filed in trial courts. 13 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings been filed on the date deposited with the clerk, despite its rejection for technical deficiencies, and noting that “[t]here is a strong policy in favor of hearing cases on their merits and against depriving a party of his right of appeal because of technical noncompliance in matters of form’”).) Cc Possible Outcomes in the Appeals and Possible Outcomes in this Proceeding are Irreconcilable. An automatic stay of this proceeding is necessary because any further activity in this proceeding could affect the effectiveness of the appeals in the second manner described in Varian: the possible outcomes in this proceeding and the appeals could be irreconcilable. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 190.) Most obviously, it is possible that this Court could resolve this proceeding and issue a judgment finding Westlands’ contract to be valid, prior to a ruling by the Court of Appeal on Defendants’ 10 appeals. Such a judgment would directly affect the effectiveness of the appeals, preventing the Court 11 of Appeal from first confirming Defendants’ right to participate in the action and challenge the validity 12 of Westlands’ contract. This is due to the nature of validation proceedings, which allow one, and only 13 one, court ruling on the validity of an agency’s contracts. (See, e.g., Embarcadero Municipal 14 Improvement District v. County of Santa Barbara (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 835, 842 (cases interpreting 15 the validation statutes “have placed great importance on the need for a single dispositive final 16 judgment”); Code Civ. Proc., § 870.) If the trial court attempted to adjudicate the merits and proceed to 17 judgment on the validity of the contract prior to the Court of Appeal resolving the appeals, it would 18 conflict with the Court of Appeal’s effective opportunity to restore Defendants’ right to challenge the 19 “legality or validity” of the contract in this action, even if it agrees that Defendants’ answers are timely. 20 (Code Civ. Proc., § 862.) The appeals would be rendered futile by the further proceedings in the trial 21 court while the appeals were pending—exactly what section 916(a)’s automatic stay is designed to 22 prevent. 23 The primary purpose of validation proceedings is to “provide much-needed certainty to the 24 agency itself as well as to all third parties who would be hesitant to contract with or provide financing 25 to the agency absent that certainty.” (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & Environment v. 26 Castaic Lake Water Agency (2016) 1 Cal.App.Sth 1084, 1096.) Validation actions “are in rem 27 proceedings that, once proper constructive notice is given, result in a judgment that is ‘binding ... 28 against the world’.” (/d., quoting Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources 14 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 921.) A contract found valid by a court—such as this Court, in this proceeding—would be deemed forever valid, immune from any future challenges to its validity. Ibid.) The broad reach of Code of Civil Procedure section 870, which deems validation judgments “forever binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated, against the agency and against all other persons,” compels validation defendants to protect their interests in potential future proceedings. (Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 844-845.) The judgment would be binding against all subsequent challenges, even those brought by Defendants who were previously—however improperly—removed from the litigation. The Supreme Court in Varian gave examples where possible outcomes in an appeal and a trial 10 court proceeding could be irreconcilable, necessitating a stay of the trial court proceeding pending the 11 resolution of the appeal. (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 190.) In the first example, “an appeal from 12 the denial ofa motion to vacate a spousal support order precludes the trial court from terminating its 13 jurisdiction over spousal support because the termination of jurisdiction is irreconcilable with possible 14 outcomes on appeal.” (/bid, citing In re Marriage of Varner (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 932, 937.) There, 15 because the appeal could possibly result in a remand to the trial court, the trial court could not terminate 16 its jurisdiction over the matter until after the resolution of the appeal. Similarly, here, Defendants’ 17 appeals on the timeliness of their answers may well result in remand back to this Court, affirming the 18 right of Defendants to challenge the legality or validity of Westlands’ contract and have their defenses 19 adjudicated prior to this Court’s disposition of the action. By contrast, proceeding in Defendants’ 20 absence in this Court while their appeals remain pending could forever deprive them of that 21 opportunity. Moreover, if the validation merits adjudicated in Defendants’ absence result in a judgment 22 validating Westlands’ contract, it could potentially foreclose them, and all others, from all future 23 challenges to the validity of the contract. (See, Code Civ. Proc., § 870; Friedland, 62 Cal.App.4th 835, 24 at pp. 844-845.) The two possible outcomes are plainly irreconcilable. 25 The Supreme Court’s second example of potentially irreconcilable results regards plaintiffs who 26 appealed “a judgment declaring that they take nothing by way ofa deficiency, after a judicial 27 foreclosure sale of real property...” (Nelson v. Orosco (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 73, 75; Varian, supra, 28 35 Cal.4th at p. 190.) The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking to set aside the foreclosure 15 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings sale, and the motion was heard and granted by the trial court. (Nelson, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 76.) The appellate court then heard both the plaintiffs’ appeal of the earlier deficiency judgment, and the defendants’ appeal of the trial court’s granting of the motion to set aside the foreclosure sale. The appellate court found that the appeal prevented the trial court from hearing the motion to set aside the foreclosure sale, because it was possible that the appellate court would affirm the earlier order denying the plaintiffa deficiency judgment, “forever den[ying] him such relief.” (/d. at p. 80.) Such a result was irreconcilable with the trial court’s granting a motion to set aside the foreclosure sale, as that order “had the effect of permitting another such sale,” a result that could be precluded by the appeal. (/bid.) The appeals at issue here are not materially different. It is possible that the appellate court will 10 reverse this Court and find that Defendants’ answers were timely filed, enabling them to pursue their 11 challenges to the validity of Westlands’ contract. If further proceedings take place before the Court of 12 Appeal issues its ruling, and a judgment is entered in favor of Westlands, validating its contract, an 13 irreconcilable result will have been reached. Proceedings on the merits of the validation of the contract 14 must therefore be automatically stayed pursuant to section 916(a), pending resolution of Defendants’ 15 appeals. D. Any Further Proceedings Regarding the Validity of Westlands’ Contract Cannot 16 be Considered Ancillary or Collateral to the Matters on Appeal. 17 Further proceedings regarding the validity of Westlands’ contract cannot be considered ancillary 18 or collateral matters not affecting the order that is on appeal. (See Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 191.) 19 Examples of matters considered ancillary or collateral include: (1) a motion for a new trial, (2) a 20 proceeding to expunge a lis pendens, or (3) a proceeding that could or would have occurred regardless 21 of the outcome of the appeal (such as post-order proceedings independent of and after an appeal from 22 the denial ofa preliminary injunction, or an appeal from an order denying a motion to disqualify 23 opposing counsel). (/d. at p. 191 [citations omitted].)* None of these examples is remotely similar to 24 the facts here, where Defendants have appealed an order depriving them of the opportunity to 25 26 4 Even in these instances, however, a party can ask the trial court in its discretion to stay the 27 proceedings, and if that request is denied, the party can request the stay from the appellate court by writ 28 of supersedeas or other discretionary stay. (See, e.g., Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 448, 453-455.) 16 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings participate in the trial court proceedings. Given that the matter on appeal is Defendants’ right to contest the merits of the validity of Westlands’ contract and present their own defenses, further proceedings on those very merits cannot be considered ancillary or collateral to the matter on appeal. As such, further proceedings must be stayed. E In the Alternative, a Discretionary Stay is Warranted. If this Court does not issue an automatic stay pursuant to section 916, Defendants seek a discretionary stay to promote judicial efficiency, prevent inconsistent decisions, and maintain the status quo pending resolution of the appeals. The statutory scheme presumes that perfecting an appeal automatically stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from. (Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629.) Nonetheless, the trial court, in its discretion, may stay the 10 enforcement of any judgment or order, whether or not an appeal will be taken from the judgment or 11 order and whether or not a notice of appeal has been filed. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 918, subd. (a), (c).) 12 Trial courts have the inherent authority to stay an action when appropriate. (Jordache Enterprises, Inc. 13 v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 762 [“[T]he case management tools available 14 to trial courts, including the inherent authority to stay an action when appropriate ... can overcome 15 problems of simultaneous litigation if they do occur.”]; see also Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior 16 Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 301-302 [court stayed case pending resolution of third party suit to 17 eliminate risk of inconsistencies].) 18 Similar to an automatic stay under section 916, one of the purposes ofa discretionary stay is to 19 “maintain the status quo pending an appeal.” (Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 448, 20 454.) The court in Reed articulated the difference between an automatic stay and a discretionary stay, 21 stating the question is whether “the trial must be stayed, automatically, under section 916, subdivision 22 (a), to prevent futility of the appeal, or whether the trial should be stayed, in the discretion of the trial or 23 appellate court, to maintain the status quo pending the appeal.” (Reed, at p. 454 [emphasis in 24 original].) Reed recognized there may be a situation where an automatic stay is not required because 25 the matter is ancillary to the judgment, such as disqualification of opposing counsel, but a trial court 26 should still issue a stay, in its discretion, to maintain the status quo pending the appeal. (Reed, at pp. 27 454-455.) 28 17 Case No. 34-2018-00246183 Notice of Motion and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings Here, the Court ruled in its Order that Defendants’ answers were not timely, but no such ruling was made of the answers filed by Central Delta Water Agency and South Delta Water Agency. These parties thus remain in the proceedings, actively challenging the validity of Westlands’ contract. A decision by this Court rejecting the merits of these parties’ challenge, affirming the validity of the contract and precluding any further challenges (since such a judgment is forever “binding ... against the world” (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & Environment, supra, | Cal.App.Sth at p. 1096), would create the potential for inconsistent and conflicting opinions, if and when Defendants prevail on appeal and their right to challenge the contract is affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Therefore, if this Court finds that the matter is not automatically stayed pursuant to section 916(a), it should stay the case 10 anyway, in its discretion, to preserve the status quo and prevent the very real possibility of inconsistent 11 rulings. 12 Westlands may argue that a stay would unnecessarily delay the validation proceedings, which 13 are to be “speedily heard and determined.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 867.) But the specific rights of 14 Defendants to have their challenges to Westlands’ contract heard after filing timely answers (Code Civ. 15 Proc., § 862) must take precedence over the general statutory scheme for speedy resolution ofa 16 validation proceeding. Notwithstanding that general provision, the speed of validation actions depends 17 heavily on their facts and circumstances. Complex water contract validation cases cannot be presumed 18 to be capable of resolution without prematurity or prejudice in a matter of months. (See, e.g., 19 Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 790.) 20 Surely Westlands was aware that attacking some, but not all, defendants on timeliness grounds 21 while simultaneously rushing to validate its proposed contract would create the scenario it now finds 22 itself in, of potentially irreconcilable and/or inconsistent opinions that require the proceedings be stayed 23 pending appeal. Resolving the appeals first is necessary to preserve Defendants’ statutory right to 24 participate in this action. Although the sharply defined timeliness issue pending on appeal can and 25 should be promptly resolved, the impact ofa stay on the speed of reaching the validation merits here 26 warrants no consideration. On the contrary, premature disposition of the action in this Court, without 27 fir