Preview
1
SCOTT K. KUNEY, SBN 111115
ALAN F. DOUD, SBN 246969
2 BRETT A. STROUD SBN 301777
The Law Offices of Young Wooldridge, llp E-FILED
3 1800 30th Street, Fourth Floor 2/5/2021 2:42 PM
Bakersfield, CA 93301
4
Superior Court of California
Telephone: (661)327-9661
Facsimile: (661)327-0720
County of Fresno
5 By: I. Herrera, Deputy
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
6 JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT
EXEMPT FROM FILING FEE [GO V. CODE § 61 03J
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
9
10
JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Case No. 20CECG03436
11
Plaintiff, Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan
12
-v-
13
14 ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
MATTER OF THE VALIDITY OF THAT JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND
15 CERTAIN CONTRACT, ENTITLED CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND
PROCEEDINGS
"CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED
16
STATES OF AMERICA AND JAMES [Water Code §22230, 22650, 22670; Code
17 IRRIGATION DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR Civ. Proc. §§585(d), 860 et seq)]
PROJECT WATER SERVICE FROM
18 DELTA DIVISION AND FACILITIES
REPAYMENT, CONTRACT NO. 14-06-200-
19
700-A-LTR1-P, OR IN THE PROCEEDINGS
20 LEADING UP TO, AND INCLUDING, THE
AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXECUTION
21 AND THE APPROVAL OF SAID
CONTRACT,
22
23 Defendants.
24
25
III
26
III
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS
1
1 I.
2 INTRODUCTION
3 This ex parte application concerns a validation action initiated by Plaintiffs filing of a
4 verified complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§860 et seq ., Government Code §5351 1,
5 and Water Code §§22230, 22650, and 22670. By this application, Plaintiff seeks a Judgment
6 validating and confirming a long-term renewal contract entered into between the United States and
7 Plaintiff, JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "District"), which provides
8 for the continued conveyance and delivery of Central Valley Project water to the District, and
9 associated proceedings leading up to, and including, the authorization of the execution and approval
10 of the contract. After providing the notice required by law - publication and posting of summons
11 pursuant to this Court's Order (CCP §§ 861, 861.1), no interested party filed an answer or otherwise
12 appeared to contest the legality or validity of the matter sought to be determined by the Verified
13 Complaint. Thus, jurisdiction is complete (CCP § 862). Filed concurrently herewith are Plaintiff's
14 duly executed Proof of Service of Summons by Publication and Proof of Service of Summons by
15 Posting together with the Declaration of Alan Doud in Support of Entry of Default.
16 In essence, this is an unopposed ex parte application to confirm a long-term renewal water
17 contract similar to prior contracts entered into between the United States and the DISTRICT since
18 1963. For the reasons provided herein. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a Judgment in its
19 favor on the basis of this application, including the undisputed facts set forth in the verified
20 Complaint and other pleadings on file herein which Plaintiff hereby requests that this Court take
21 judicial notice of pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d).
22 II.
23 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
24 Plaintiff is a California irrigation district, duly formed, organized, and existing pursuant to
25 and under the provisions set forth in the California Irrigation District Law, Water Code §§20500 et
26 seep, with its principal office located in Fresno County, California. (Verified Complaint, K 1 .) The
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS
2
1 West Side Advance is a newspaper of general circulation, published and distributed in Fresno
2 County, including within Plaintiff's boundaries. (Id., ^|27.)
3 On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed its verified complaint ("Verified Complaint") in the
4 Fresno County Superior Court to validate the contract and proceedings relating to a long-term
5 agreement entitled "CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAMES
6 IRRIGATION DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE FROM DELTA
7 DIVISION AND FACILITIES REPAYMENT Contract No. 1 4-06-200-700-ALTR1 -P
8 ("Contract"). (Verified Complaint, ^|4.) The Contract became fully executed on October 22, 2020.
9 (Verified Complaint fl7.) Paragraph 41 of the Repayment Contract requires Plaintiff to secure a
10 judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of California, confirming the validity of
11 the Repayment Contract. (Id., ^|19.)
12 The Contract is a long-term water service contract providing for continued conveyance and
13 delivery of Central Valley Project water to the District (Verified Complaint, f 6 and Exhibit "5"
14 thereto.) The Contract is substantially similar to other contracts entered into between the United
15 States and the District since 1963. (Exhibit "2" to Verified Complaint.) For the reasons set forth
16 in its Resolution adopted on October 13, 2020, and attached as Exhibit "2" to the Verified
17 Complaint, Plaintiff's Board of Directors approved the Contract and authorized its execution.
18 (Verified Complaint, 14, 15, and 16.) The Contract was executed by Plaintiff's President and
19 Secretary and by the Bureau of Reclamation. (Verified Complaint, f 18.) The Contract, including
20 each of the provisions thereof, is lawful, valid, binding upon the respective parties thereto and in
21 the best interests of the District. (Verified Complaint, f 1 7, 30.) Moreover, the proceedings leading
22 up to, and including, the authorization of the execution and approval of the Contract by Plaintiff's
23 Board of Directors were conducted and carried out in all respects as required by law. (Verified
24 Complaint, f 3 1 .)
25 Upon ex parte application, this Court subsequently ordered Plaintiff to provide service of
26 process, in accordance with CCP § 861, by publication of a summons in the West Side Advance,
27
28
EX PARTE- APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS
3
1 for the time and manner required by Gov Code § 6063, and by posting a summons in three (3)
2 public places within the District. A summons was then issued by the Clerk, in the form required by
3 CCP §861.1. Then, in accordance with said Order, beginning on December 30, 2020, the Summons
4 was published in the West Side Advance once a week for three consecutive weeks, as required by
5 Gov. Code § 6063, and posted at three public places within the boundaries of the District. Filed
6 concurrently herewith are Plaintiff's duly executed Proof of Service of Summons by Publication
7 and Proof of Service of Summons by Posting together with the Declaration of Alan Doud in Support
8 of Entry of Default. Plaintiff did not receive notice that any interested party filed an answer to or
9 otherwise objected to the Verified Complaint by the date specified in the Summons, January 30,
10 2021, at which point jurisdiction became complete (CCP § 862.) Filed concurrently herewith is
11 Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default and Default Judgment by Court.
12
III.
13
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONFIRM AND VALIDATE THE
14
CONTRACT AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
15
As a California irrigation district, Plaintiff is authorized to file an action under CCP §§ 860
16
et seq. to determine the validity of its contracts by virtue of the provisions of Gov. Code § 5351 1
17
and Water Code §§ 22230, 22650, and 22670, namely the water services Contract that is of concern
18
herein, and the proceedings and related actions leading up to, and including, Plaintiffs
19
authorization of the execution and approval of said Contract (Verified Complaint, % 4.) To effectuate
20
validation, CCP § 860 provides that plaintiff may bring an action in the superior court of the county
21
in which the principal office of the public agency is located to determine the validity of said
22
Contract. (CCP § 860.) Because Plaintiff's principal office is located in Fresno County, venue is
23
proper in this Court. Moreover, this action is timely as it was filed on November 23, 2020, which
24
is no later than sixty days after October 1 3, 2020, the date the Contract is deemed to have come into
25
existence. (Verified Complaint, 14, 15, 21 and 24.)
26
Publication of the Summons is to be in "a newspaper of general circulation designated by
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS
4
1 the court ..." (CCP § 861.) The Summons shall provide that anyone contesting the validity of
2 the Contract must appear and answer within ten days after the completion of publication. ( CCP §
3 86 1 . 1 .)
Moreover. "[n]o contest except by the public agency or its officers or agent of anything or
4 matter under this chapter shall be made other than within the time and manner herein specified."
5 (CCP § 869.)
6 The District has complied with all the requirements in CCP §§ 860 et seq. regarding
7 validation of the Contract. Concurrently filed herewith are Plaintiff's duly executed Proofs of
8 Service of Summons confirming that beginning on December 30, 2020the Summons was published
9 once a week for three consecutive weeks in the West Side Advance and posted in three (3) public
10 places within the District, all as required by this Court's Order of publication and posting. The
11 Summons expressly provided that any answers objecting to the Verified Complaint had to be filed
12 by January 30, 2021.
13 As mentioned supra, Plaintiff's Board of Directors approved the Contract and authorized
14 its execution; the Contract was executed by Plaintiff's President and Secretary, and by the Bureau
15 of Reclamation; and the Contract, including each of the provisions thereof, is lawful, valid, binding
16 upon the respective parties thereto and in the best interests of the District. (Verified Complaint, ff
17 14, 17, 18, and 30.) Moreover, the proceedings leading up to, and including, the authorization of
18 the execution and approval of the Contract by Plaintiff's Board of Directors were conducted and
19 carried out in all respects as required by law. (Verified Complaint, H 3 1 .)
20 Because CCP § 869 provides that the only method of contesting the validity of the Contract
21 is by an answer within the specified time frame (i.e., on or before January 30, 2021) and no answers
22 have been filed contesting the above facts set forth in the Verified Complaint, and default has been
23 entered, good cause exists for this Court to enter a Judgment validating and confirming the long-
24 term renewal Contract and the proceedings leading up to, and including, the authorization of the
25 execution and the approval and ratification of the Contract.
26 III
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS
5
1 IV.
2 CONCLUSION
3 For all the reasons stated above, and each of them, it is respectfully requested that this Court
4 issue a Judgment confirming and validating the Contract and the proceedings leading up to, and
5 including, the authorization of the execution and the approval of the Contract.
6
7 THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE, LLP
8
9 Date: February 4, 2021 By:
L 1_
10
SCOTT K. KUNEY
ALAN F. DOUD
11 BRETT A. STROUD
Attorneys for JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS
6
Preview
1 SCOTT K. KUNEY, SBN 111115 ALAN F. DOUD, SBN 246969 2 BRETT A. STROUD SBN 301777 The Law Offices of Young Wooldridge, llp E-FILED 3 1800 30th Street, Fourth Floor 2/5/2021 2:42 PM Bakersfield, CA 93301 4 Superior Court of California Telephone: (661)327-9661 Facsimile: (661)327-0720 County of Fresno 5 By: I. Herrera, Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6 JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT EXEMPT FROM FILING FEE [GO V. CODE § 61 03J 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 9 10 JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Case No. 20CECG03436 11 Plaintiff, Honorable Kristi Culver Kapetan 12 -v- 13 14 ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR MATTER OF THE VALIDITY OF THAT JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND 15 CERTAIN CONTRACT, ENTITLED CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS "CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED 16 STATES OF AMERICA AND JAMES [Water Code §22230, 22650, 22670; Code 17 IRRIGATION DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR Civ. Proc. §§585(d), 860 et seq)] PROJECT WATER SERVICE FROM 18 DELTA DIVISION AND FACILITIES REPAYMENT, CONTRACT NO. 14-06-200- 19 700-A-LTR1-P, OR IN THE PROCEEDINGS 20 LEADING UP TO, AND INCLUDING, THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE EXECUTION 21 AND THE APPROVAL OF SAID CONTRACT, 22 23 Defendants. 24 25 III 26 III 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS 1 1 I. 2 INTRODUCTION 3 This ex parte application concerns a validation action initiated by Plaintiffs filing of a 4 verified complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§860 et seq ., Government Code §5351 1, 5 and Water Code §§22230, 22650, and 22670. By this application, Plaintiff seeks a Judgment 6 validating and confirming a long-term renewal contract entered into between the United States and 7 Plaintiff, JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "District"), which provides 8 for the continued conveyance and delivery of Central Valley Project water to the District, and 9 associated proceedings leading up to, and including, the authorization of the execution and approval 10 of the contract. After providing the notice required by law - publication and posting of summons 11 pursuant to this Court's Order (CCP §§ 861, 861.1), no interested party filed an answer or otherwise 12 appeared to contest the legality or validity of the matter sought to be determined by the Verified 13 Complaint. Thus, jurisdiction is complete (CCP § 862). Filed concurrently herewith are Plaintiff's 14 duly executed Proof of Service of Summons by Publication and Proof of Service of Summons by 15 Posting together with the Declaration of Alan Doud in Support of Entry of Default. 16 In essence, this is an unopposed ex parte application to confirm a long-term renewal water 17 contract similar to prior contracts entered into between the United States and the DISTRICT since 18 1963. For the reasons provided herein. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter a Judgment in its 19 favor on the basis of this application, including the undisputed facts set forth in the verified 20 Complaint and other pleadings on file herein which Plaintiff hereby requests that this Court take 21 judicial notice of pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d). 22 II. 23 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff is a California irrigation district, duly formed, organized, and existing pursuant to 25 and under the provisions set forth in the California Irrigation District Law, Water Code §§20500 et 26 seep, with its principal office located in Fresno County, California. (Verified Complaint, K 1 .) The 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS 2 1 West Side Advance is a newspaper of general circulation, published and distributed in Fresno 2 County, including within Plaintiff's boundaries. (Id., ^|27.) 3 On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed its verified complaint ("Verified Complaint") in the 4 Fresno County Superior Court to validate the contract and proceedings relating to a long-term 5 agreement entitled "CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAMES 6 IRRIGATION DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR PROJECT WATER SERVICE FROM DELTA 7 DIVISION AND FACILITIES REPAYMENT Contract No. 1 4-06-200-700-ALTR1 -P 8 ("Contract"). (Verified Complaint, ^|4.) The Contract became fully executed on October 22, 2020. 9 (Verified Complaint fl7.) Paragraph 41 of the Repayment Contract requires Plaintiff to secure a 10 judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of California, confirming the validity of 11 the Repayment Contract. (Id., ^|19.) 12 The Contract is a long-term water service contract providing for continued conveyance and 13 delivery of Central Valley Project water to the District (Verified Complaint, f 6 and Exhibit "5" 14 thereto.) The Contract is substantially similar to other contracts entered into between the United 15 States and the District since 1963. (Exhibit "2" to Verified Complaint.) For the reasons set forth 16 in its Resolution adopted on October 13, 2020, and attached as Exhibit "2" to the Verified 17 Complaint, Plaintiff's Board of Directors approved the Contract and authorized its execution. 18 (Verified Complaint, 14, 15, and 16.) The Contract was executed by Plaintiff's President and 19 Secretary and by the Bureau of Reclamation. (Verified Complaint, f 18.) The Contract, including 20 each of the provisions thereof, is lawful, valid, binding upon the respective parties thereto and in 21 the best interests of the District. (Verified Complaint, f 1 7, 30.) Moreover, the proceedings leading 22 up to, and including, the authorization of the execution and approval of the Contract by Plaintiff's 23 Board of Directors were conducted and carried out in all respects as required by law. (Verified 24 Complaint, f 3 1 .) 25 Upon ex parte application, this Court subsequently ordered Plaintiff to provide service of 26 process, in accordance with CCP § 861, by publication of a summons in the West Side Advance, 27 28 EX PARTE- APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS 3 1 for the time and manner required by Gov Code § 6063, and by posting a summons in three (3) 2 public places within the District. A summons was then issued by the Clerk, in the form required by 3 CCP §861.1. Then, in accordance with said Order, beginning on December 30, 2020, the Summons 4 was published in the West Side Advance once a week for three consecutive weeks, as required by 5 Gov. Code § 6063, and posted at three public places within the boundaries of the District. Filed 6 concurrently herewith are Plaintiff's duly executed Proof of Service of Summons by Publication 7 and Proof of Service of Summons by Posting together with the Declaration of Alan Doud in Support 8 of Entry of Default. Plaintiff did not receive notice that any interested party filed an answer to or 9 otherwise objected to the Verified Complaint by the date specified in the Summons, January 30, 10 2021, at which point jurisdiction became complete (CCP § 862.) Filed concurrently herewith is 11 Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default and Default Judgment by Court. 12 III. 13 GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONFIRM AND VALIDATE THE 14 CONTRACT AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS 15 As a California irrigation district, Plaintiff is authorized to file an action under CCP §§ 860 16 et seq. to determine the validity of its contracts by virtue of the provisions of Gov. Code § 5351 1 17 and Water Code §§ 22230, 22650, and 22670, namely the water services Contract that is of concern 18 herein, and the proceedings and related actions leading up to, and including, Plaintiffs 19 authorization of the execution and approval of said Contract (Verified Complaint, % 4.) To effectuate 20 validation, CCP § 860 provides that plaintiff may bring an action in the superior court of the county 21 in which the principal office of the public agency is located to determine the validity of said 22 Contract. (CCP § 860.) Because Plaintiff's principal office is located in Fresno County, venue is 23 proper in this Court. Moreover, this action is timely as it was filed on November 23, 2020, which 24 is no later than sixty days after October 1 3, 2020, the date the Contract is deemed to have come into 25 existence. (Verified Complaint, 14, 15, 21 and 24.) 26 Publication of the Summons is to be in "a newspaper of general circulation designated by 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS 4 1 the court ..." (CCP § 861.) The Summons shall provide that anyone contesting the validity of 2 the Contract must appear and answer within ten days after the completion of publication. ( CCP § 3 86 1 . 1 .) Moreover. "[n]o contest except by the public agency or its officers or agent of anything or 4 matter under this chapter shall be made other than within the time and manner herein specified." 5 (CCP § 869.) 6 The District has complied with all the requirements in CCP §§ 860 et seq. regarding 7 validation of the Contract. Concurrently filed herewith are Plaintiff's duly executed Proofs of 8 Service of Summons confirming that beginning on December 30, 2020the Summons was published 9 once a week for three consecutive weeks in the West Side Advance and posted in three (3) public 10 places within the District, all as required by this Court's Order of publication and posting. The 11 Summons expressly provided that any answers objecting to the Verified Complaint had to be filed 12 by January 30, 2021. 13 As mentioned supra, Plaintiff's Board of Directors approved the Contract and authorized 14 its execution; the Contract was executed by Plaintiff's President and Secretary, and by the Bureau 15 of Reclamation; and the Contract, including each of the provisions thereof, is lawful, valid, binding 16 upon the respective parties thereto and in the best interests of the District. (Verified Complaint, ff 17 14, 17, 18, and 30.) Moreover, the proceedings leading up to, and including, the authorization of 18 the execution and approval of the Contract by Plaintiff's Board of Directors were conducted and 19 carried out in all respects as required by law. (Verified Complaint, H 3 1 .) 20 Because CCP § 869 provides that the only method of contesting the validity of the Contract 21 is by an answer within the specified time frame (i.e., on or before January 30, 2021) and no answers 22 have been filed contesting the above facts set forth in the Verified Complaint, and default has been 23 entered, good cause exists for this Court to enter a Judgment validating and confirming the long- 24 term renewal Contract and the proceedings leading up to, and including, the authorization of the 25 execution and the approval and ratification of the Contract. 26 III 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS 5 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For all the reasons stated above, and each of them, it is respectfully requested that this Court 4 issue a Judgment confirming and validating the Contract and the proceedings leading up to, and 5 including, the authorization of the execution and the approval of the Contract. 6 7 THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE, LLP 8 9 Date: February 4, 2021 By: L 1_ 10 SCOTT K. KUNEY ALAN F. DOUD 11 BRETT A. STROUD Attorneys for JAMES IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT VALIDATING AND CONFIRMING CONTRACT AND PROCEEDINGS 6