Tentative Ruling: IN RE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-02-2014 12:24 pm

Case Number: CPF-14-514004
Filing Date: Dec-02-2014 12:23
Filed by: TJ MOROHOSHI
Juke Box: 001 | Image: 04708073
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

IN RE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

001004708073

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.a
FILED NTY
4 angisco COU
SAN ERE bR COURT
Honorable Richard Rico DEC -2 2014 Friday — October 31, 2014
Department 17 aut Calendar No. 15
Pp E
ye CPF-14-514004
San Diego County Wate®J uthotity; etropolitan Water District of
Southern California, et al. su of (LED
irt
BCS47139 Gouniy of Los anaes
(1) Metropolitan’s motion to stay
(2) SDCWA’s motion to transfer vene OCT 31 2014

TENTAT!

Sherri Executive Ogicer/Clerk
By,
‘Anthony Bf Deputy

This action was initiated by petitionef/plaintiff San Diego County Water
Authority (“SDCWA”) against respondents/defendants Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (“Metropolitan”) and all persons interested in the validity of the rates
adopted by the MWD on April 8, 2014 to be effective January 1, 2015 and January 1,

2016 for (1) writ of mandate re: allocation
relief re: allocation of costs in 2015/2016
adopted by Metropolitan on or about April

On 7/18/14, Metropolitan filed a mi
motion to change venue.

Relevant to these motions, it is alle;

2. This complaint is a continuation

Authority and Metropolitan, which it

of costs in 2015/2016 rates; (2) declaratory
s; (3) determination of invalidity of rates
|, 2014; and (4) breach of contract.

ofion to stay. On 8/29/14, SDCWA filed a

in the complaint that:

f pending litigation between the Water
cludes two previously-filed (and now

partially-decided) cases, San Diego County Water Authority v Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California et all, Case No. CPF-10-510830 (the “2010 case”)
and San Diego County Water Authority v Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California et al., Case No. CPF- 127512466 (the “2012 case”) (collectively, the

“2010 and 2012 Cases”), both pen
those earlier cases and this case, th
challenging the same unlawful wat
(Metropolitan) using the same cost.
ee justified by the same, or very simil.
ee record. The 2010 case challenged
. and 2012, while the 2012 case chal!
2013 and 2014. On April 24, 2014,

. final Statement of Decision in the
& Metropolitan’s rates—the System
‘ Stewardship Rate, and wheeling rat
hs because they violate cost-of-service
& Constitution, California statutory |
ee

ig in San Francisco Superior Court. In both

same plaintiff (the Water Authority) is

rates set by the same defendant

location methodology and purportedly

, facts and documentary administrative
letropolitan’s rates for calendar years 2011

lenged Metropolitan’s rates for calendar years

the Honorable Curtis E.A. Karnow entered a

10 and 2012 Cases invalidating four of

Access Rate, System Power Rate, Water

te—for each of calendar years 2011-2014,
requirements imposed by the California

ww and .the common law. (A copy of the

Statement of Decision is attached as Exhibit A).ITs Me Tt

which, as discussed above, are factually and legally nearly identical to this case.
(Complaint 992-3.)

In Metropolitan’s motion to stay (joined by the City of Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power, Three Valley Municipal] Water District, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Western Municipal Water District, Foothill Municipal Water District, and West
Basin Municipal Water District), Metropolitan argues that this action should be stayed in
light of the 2010 and 2012 actions currently pending in San Francisco Superior Court.
These cases are nearly resolved at the trial cqurt level and to date, there have been claims
and issues decided for and against both Metropolitan and SDCWA. Upon final judgment,
Metropolitan will appeal the trial court’s rulings against it and understands that SDCWA
will do the same. The legal issues in this actipn will be resolved by the Court of Appeal
and/or the California Supreme Court. Pending resolution of the appeal, this action (the
2014 action) should be stayed.

There is no dispute that the issues in this action is “nearly identical” to the 2010
and 2014 actions pending in the San Francis¢o Superior Court, given the allegations in
the complaint. Instead of staying this action) however, SDCWA has filed a motion to
transfer, arguing that there is no logical reasgn or legal justification for this case to
remain in this court. All three actions began jin this Court because SDCWA is required to
file here under the venue statute. SDCWA argues that it is legally required that once
filed, the court must transfer the case to a neptral venue under CCP § 394(a) because the
dispute involves two “local agencies.” This js the reason Metropolitan stipulated to
transfer the two prior cases from this court to the San Francisco Superior Court. Instead
of agreeing to transfer this action, however, Metropolitan asks the court indefinitely stay
this case pending appellate resolution of the|prior cases. Since SDCWA has timely
moved for a change of venue under CCP § 394(a), Metropolitan’s motion must be denied
or deferred pending transfer. SDCWA argues that transfer is mandatory under the
circumstances.

In opposition to the motion to transfer venue, Metropolitan argues that the Court
has the power to decide the motion to stay and CCP § 394 does not remove the court’s
jurisdiction to act as to procedural motions. |Since CCP § 394 only applies to a venue
where a case will be tried, transferring this action prior to the parties’ appeal of the 2010
and 2012 actions would be premature.

CCP § 394(a) provides, in relevant part:

An action or proceeding against a county, or city and county, a city, or local
agency, may be tried in the county, or city and county, or the county in which the
city or local agency is situated, unless the action or proceeding is brought by a
county, or city and county, a city, /or local agency, in which case it may berR? re

tried in any county, or city and county, not a party thereto and in which the

city or local agency is not situated..
county, city and county, city, or local

any action or proceeding brought by a
agency within a certain county, or city and

county, against a resident of another county, city and county, or city, or a
corporation doing business in the latter, shall be, on motion of either party,
transferred for trial to a county, or city and county, other than the plaintiff, if the
plaintiff is a county, or city and count and other than that in which the plaintiff

is situated, if the plaintiff is a city, or
the defendant resides, or is doing busi
(Emphasis added.)

“The statute is couched in mandatory
an action to a neutral county upon timely a
Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 119.
an exception to the general venue rules of se
been characterized as a “removal statute” rat
control original venue. [Citation.] A county
against a nonresident defendant in a venue t
venue rules. If that venue is in the county suit
which the local agency is located), upon tim«
the court must designate a neutral county to
[Citation.] This statutory framework prevent

local agency, and other than that in which
hess, or is situated...

language, requiring the trial court to transfer
ication. [Citation.]” (Arntz Builders v.
1203.) Section 394 has been described as
tion 395. [Citation.} Section 394 also has
r than a “venue statute” because it does not ©
r other local agency must file an action
at is otherwise proper under the general
g the nonresident defendant (or within
ly application of the nonresident defendant
hich the action will be transferred.
a county or local agency that files suit

against a nonresident defendant from unilaterally selecting the neutral county that is most

satisfactory to it. [Citation.]” (/d.)

The court finds that the parties are in agreement that this action concerns issues

identical to the issues in the prior actions. T!
argument that the motion is premature lacks
language of section 394 referring to “trial.”
wait until right before trial before moving fo}
point the other-party would likely be able to
supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at 1204 (“The fact t
similarly may be waived by delay...”)

court also finds that Metropolitan’s
support. Metropolitan only cites the

y Metropolitan’s argument, a party should *
relief pursuant to section 394, at which
‘gue waiver by delay. (See Arntz Builders,
it the removal provisions of section 394

Metropolitan also acknowledges thatjno appeals have been filed in the 2010 and

2012 actions (since they have yet to teach fi
this action stayin,

particularly sincetaaranstet out of thi
Accordingly, the éotrt GRA

motion to stay to the Sani Fran ANE ie

ei ko)
wttegel

judgment). It makes little sense to have
3 the other actions are finally resolved
section 394(a).
ruling on the