arrow left
arrow right
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
  • In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) Other Complaint (Not Spec) Unlimited (42)  document preview
						
                                

Preview

ie SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RCTS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Se MINUTE ORDER In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Hearing Start Time 9:00 AM (coordinated into Twitchell Dam Cases, JCCP4948) 1997-1-CV-770214 Hearing Type: Hearing: Other Date of Hearing: 06/26/2020 Comments: Line 1 Heard By: Kirwan, Peter Location Department 19 Courtroom Reporter: Courtroom Clerk Felicia Samoy Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - 9:09am Reported Court reporter Jody Johnston appeared by Court call. Counsel for Nipomo Community Services B. Tilden Kim, Sharer Brothers LLC counsel Alexander Lemieux, Woodland Ventures counsel Geoffrey Robinson, City of Pismo Beach counsel Jessica Johnson, LOG Parties counsel Richard Zimmer, Oceano Community Services counsel Jeffrey Minnery, County of Santa Barbara counsel Sheila Nagaraj, Phillips 66 counsel Craig Parton Golden State Water counsel Robert Saperstein and Jessica Diaz, San Luis Obispo County counsel Elizabeth Ewens, City of Grover Beach counsel Joseph Salazar, and City of Santa Maria counsel Jeffrey Dunn all appeared by Court call. Hearing held and Court heard discussion. Court adopts tentative ruling, see tentative ruling below: Court orders all parties to submit a joint conference statement to Court 5 days in advance. Printed: 6/26/2020 06/26/2020 Hearing: Other - 1997-1-CV-770214 Page 1 of 5 ie SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RCTS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Se MINUTE ORDER Set Case Management Conference on December 4, 2020 at 9:00am in department 19. Calendar Line 1 Case Name: Twitchell Dam Cases Case No.: Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4948 |. Background This case involves a determination of the rights of the parties to use the water within the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. On June 30, 2005, a majority of the parties entered into a stipulated agreement, reduced to a judgment in 2008, that effectively resolved the competing interests in the Basin as to the stipulating parties. The stipulation and judgment divided the Basin into three separate management areas. The Northern Cities Management Area represents the northern portion; the Nipomo Mesa Management Area represents the southeast portion; the Santa Maria Valley Management Area encompasses the remainder. Now before the court is a petition to coordinate add-on cases with the Santa Maria Groundwater Litigation. On March 6, 2020, the Landowner Group Parties filed an opposition to the petition. On March 13, they withdrew the opposition and joined in the petition. The petition is now unopposed. The parties also request acceptance of the 2019 Annual Report. Il. Petition for Coordination When civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law are pending in different courts, a petition for coordination may be submitted to the Chairperson of the Judicial Council, by the presiding judge of any such court, or by any party to one of the actions after obtaining permission from the presiding judge, or by all of the parties plaintiff or defendant in any such action. A petition for coordination, or a motion for permission to submit a petition, shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions are complex, as defined by the Judicial Council and that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1. On receipt of a petition for coordination, the Chairperson of the Judicial Printed: 6/26/2020 06/26/2020 Hearing: Other - 1997-1-CV-770214 Page 2 of 5 ie SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RCTS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Se MINUTE ORDER Council may assign a judge to determine whether the actions are complex, and if so, whether coordination of the actions is appropriate, or the Chairperson of the Judicial Council may authorize the presiding judge ofa court to assign the matter to judicial officers of the court to make the determination in the same manner as assignments are made in other civil cases. (Code Civ. Proc., 404.) Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. (Code Civ. Proc., 404.1.) The petition is jointly submitted by Nipomo Community Services District, City of Santa Maria, Golden State Water Company, City of Guadalupe, City of Pismo Beach, City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach, Oceano Community Services District, County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Santa Barbara County Water Agency (collectively, Petitioners ). Petitioners seek to coordinate the following cases with the Santa Maria Groundwater Litigation: (1) JC & Elsie Teixeira Family Limited Partnership v. City of Santa Maria, et al. (Case No. 19-CV-0230), filed April 16, 2019 in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; (2) Koch California Ltd., et al. v. City of Santa Maria, et al. (Case No. 19-CV-0227), Printed: 6/26/2020 06/26/2020 Hearing: Other - 1997-1-CV-770214 Page 3 of 5 ie SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RCTS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Se MINUTE ORDER filed April 15, 2019 in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; (3) JC & Elsie Teixeira Family Limited Partnership v. City of Santa Maria, et al. (Case No. 19CV02086), filed April 16, 2019 in Santa Barbara County Superior Court; and (4) Adam L. Kieran, et al. v. City of Santa Maria, et al. (Case No. 19CV02091), filed April 15, 2019 in Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Petitioners include all of the defendants to the above cases. Petitioners are also parties to this litigation. Petitioners assert the four above cases are quiet title actions that share common questions of fact or law with this case in that the quiet title actions involve the question of the parties respective rights to pump groundwater from the Santa Maria groundwater basin. Petitioners also state that of the 52 named plaintiffs in the quiet title actions, at least 46 are Landowner Group parties or a successor-in-interest to such a party. Petitioners argue that forcing the parties and their counsel to participate in litigation over groundwater rights in three separate trial courts would impose an extreme burden and expense on all parties and their counsel. Lastly, Petitioners contend the quiet title actions all qualify as complex cases due to the large number of parties, a high volume of documentary evidence, post-judgment supervision that will be needed, and the nature of the claims (i.e. groundwater litigation). The court finds the cases should be coordinated. Doing so will prevent the possibility of conflicting rulings, be more efficient, and leverage this court s knowledge of and experience with the existing groundwater litigation involving these same parties. Accordingly, the petition for coordination is GRANTED, with Santa Clara County as the court to hear the coordinated actions. The Sixth Appellate District of the Court of Appeal is designated as the reviewing court having appellate jurisdiction. IIL Acceptance of the 2019 Annual Report The court accepts the filing of the 2019 Annual Report. Printed: 6/26/2020 06/26/2020 Hearing: Other - 1997-1-CV-770214 Page 4 of 5 ae 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SE MINUTE ORDER Printed: 6/26/2020 06/26/2020 Hearing: Other - 1997-1-CV-770214 Page 5 of 5