Preview
1 ELIZABETH P. EWENS (SB #213046)
elizabeth.ewens@stoel.com
2 TIMOTHY M. TAYLOR (SB #144335)
tim.taylor@stoel.com
3 JANELLE S.H. KRATTIGER (SB #299076)
janelle.krattiger@stoel.com
4 HERACLIO PIMENTEL (SB #326751)
heraclio.pimentel@stoel.com
5 STOEL RIVES LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
6 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: 916.447.0700
7 Facsimile: 916.447.4781
8 TIFFANY N. NORTH (SB #228068)
County Counsel
9 JASON T. CANGER (SB #296596)
County Counsel
10 jason.canger@ventura.org
800 South Victoria Avenue, L/C #1830
11 Ventura, CA 93009-1830
Telephone: 805.654.2590
12 Facsimile: 805.654.2185
13 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency GOV. CODE, § 6103
14
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
17 LAS POSAS VALLEY WATER RIGHTS CASE NO. 21CV03714
COALITION, an unincorporated association,
18 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER
Petitioner and Plaintiff, MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE
19 AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF
v. RELATED CASES
20
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER
21 MANAGEMENT AGENCY, a public entity,
22 Respondent and Defendant.
23 Action Filed: September 17, 2021
Trial Date: Not set.
24
25
26
27
28
S TOEL R IVES LLP
-1-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE
SACRAMENTO
OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714
115159977.8 0041862- 00006
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Fox Canyon Ground Water Management Agency (“FCGMA”) hereby responds and objects
3 to Plaintiff and Petitioner Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition’s 1 (“Plaintiff”) Notice of
4 Related Case (“Notice”), filed April 8, 2022. FCGMA is a Defendant and Respondent in each of
5 the following Santa Barbara County Superior Court cases listed in the Notice:
6
1. Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
7 Agency, case no. 21CV03714, filed September 17, 2021 (“Allocation Ordinance
Challenge”),
8
2. Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
9 Agency, case no. 20CV02036, filed June 10, 2020 (“GSP Writ Action”), and
10
3. Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al. v. Fox Canyon Groundwater
11 Management Agency, case no. VENCI00509700, filed March 27, 2018 (“Basin
Adjudication”).
12
13 As discussed further herein, Plaintiff’s Notice is untimely, Plaintiff waived its opportunity
14 to relate the cases, and the Allocation Ordinance Challenge is in a vastly different procedural
15 posture than the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. Accordingly, FCGMA respectfully
16 requests the Allocation Ordinance Challenge not be deemed related to the Basin Adjudication and
17 GSP Writ Action.
18 II. ARGUMENT
19 A. The Notice Is Untimely.
20 “The Notice of Related Case must be served and filed as soon as possible, but no later than
21 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known.” (Cal. Rules of
22 Court, rule 3.300, subd. (e), emphasis added.)
23 The Notice in this case was filed on April 8, 2022. The most recent of the three cases listed
24 in the Notice, the Allocation Ordinance Challenge, was filed more than six months earlier on
25 September 17, 2021. Upon the filing of the Allocation Ordinance Action, the facts and
26 circumstances of the GSP Writ Action and the Basin Adjudication, filed June 10, 2020 and
27 1
Plaintiff has referred to itself as both Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition and Las Posas
28 Basin Water Rights Coalition. Plaintiff has previously represented that these are the same entity.
S TOEL R IVES LLP
-2-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE
SACRAMENTO
OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714
115159977.8 0041862- 00006
1 March 7, 2018, respectively, were known, and had been known, to Plaintiff. Plaintiff in the instant
2 action is a plaintiff party in both the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. Plaintiff has been
3 represented by the same counsel, Peter A. Goldenring and Downey Brand LLP, in all three actions
4 since the first case was filed in 2018. Even if, arguendo, the cases were relatable, the Notice was
5 required to be filed “no later than 15 days” after the Allocation Ordinance Challenge was filed, that
6 is, by October 2, 2021. Instead, Plaintiff waited more than six months, allegedly after “facts
7 concerning the existence of related cases” became known, to file the Notice. The Notice is therefore
8 untimely, and the Allocation Ordinance Challenge should not be deemed related to the Basin
9 Adjudication and GSP Writ Action.
10 B. Plaintiff Has Waived Its Opportunity To Claim the Cases Are Related.
11 “Generally, ‘waiver’ denotes the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. But it can also
12 mean the loss of an opportunity or a right as a result of a party's failure to perform an act it is
13 required to perform, regardless of the party's intent to abandon or relinquish the right.” (Platt
14 Pacific, Inc. v. Andelson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 307, 315, emphasis added.)
15 Here, filing of the Notice is not a right, but rather a requirement imposed by the California
16 Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subd. (b) [“Whenever a party in a civil action
17 knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related . . . the party must serve and file a Notice
18 of Related Case.” (emphasis added)].) Rule 3.300 places the onus on both parties to submit the
19 notice of related case. (Harris v. Rojas (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 817, 820 [“Both parties had a duty
20 to file a notice of related case.”].)
21 FCGMA does not believe the cases meet the definition of “related case,” and therefore did
22 not file a notice of related case.2 If Plaintiff believed the cases were related, Plaintiff was required
23
2
24 The caption in the Third Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Re Administrative Record
(“stipulation”), submitted on April 12, 2022, in case no. 21CV03714, suggests that the three cases
25 herein discussed are related. FCGMA’s agreement to the stipulation should not be interpreted as
an agreement to relate the cases. The stipulation was signed and a limited extension was agreed
26 to as a courtesy to the Plaintiff which had not yet fulfilled its elected statutory duty to assemble
and prepare the record. It is manifestly clear that the proper method for relating cases is by notice
27
provided in the form, manner, and time prescribed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. (See
28 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subd. (b)–(e).)
S TOEL R IVES LLP
-3-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE
SACRAMENTO
OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714
115159977.8 0041862- 00006
1 to file its Notice in accordance with Rule 3.300, including satisfying the timing requirements of
2 subdivision (e). Plaintiff failed to do so in all three cases within the time required by Rule 3.300,
3 subdivision (e), and has therefore waived its opportunity to do so now. (See, e.g., Minton v.
4 Cavaney (1961) 56 Cal.2d 576, 581 [holding defendant waived statute of limitations defense by
5 failing to plead the defense in its answer or include in its general demurrer].)
6 C. The Cases Are Not Procedurally Aligned and there Is No Benefit to Relating
the Cases.
7
8 FCGMA further opposes the Notice because all three cases are in different procedural
9 phases of litigation. The Basin Adjudication—the oldest of the three cases—was filed more than
10 three years before the Allocation Ordinance Challenge—the most recent of the three cases. The
11 Basin Adjudication has been pending since 2018 and is about to enter its phase 2 trial. In contrast,
12 the Allocation Ordinance Challenge, which includes a cause of action under the California
13 Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), is awaiting preparation and certification of the
14 administrative record. CEQA actions are entitled statutory preference under Public Resources
15 Code section 21167.1, subdivision (a), and the Allocation Ordinance Challenge will be ready to
16 proceed on the CEQA claim upon certification of the administrative record. Given the six-month
17 delay in bringing the Notice, there appears to be no need to relate the Allocation Ordinance
18 Challenge with the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. The Basin Adjudication has
19 continued steadfast unimpeded by the lack of relation to the Allocation Ordinance Challenge.
20 Relating the cases would, however, serve as an obstacle to achieving the legislative intent of the
21 statutory scheme giving CEQA actions “preference over all other civil actions.” (See Pub.
22 Resources Code, § 21167.1, subd. (a).) Thus, the Allocation Ordinance Challenge should not be
23 deemed related to the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action.
24
25
26
27
28
S TOEL R IVES LLP
-4-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE
SACRAMENTO
OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714
115159977.8 0041862- 00006
1 III. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, FCGMA requests that the Allocation Ordinance Challenge not be
3 deemed related to the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action, and that the case be managed
4 separately and independently from the other matters.
5 Dated: April 15, 2022 STOEL RIVES LLP
6
By:
7 Elizabeth P. Ewens
Timothy M. Taylor
8 Janelle S.H. Krattiger
Heraclio Pimentel
9 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant
Fox Canyon Groundwater Management
10 Agency
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S TOEL R IVES LLP
-5-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE
SACRAMENTO
OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714
115159977.8 0041862- 00006
1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE
2 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the City and County of Sacramento and my business address is 500 Capitol Mall,
3 Suite 1600, Sacramento, California 95814.
On April 15, 2022, at Sacramento, California, I served the attached document(s):
4
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
5 AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF
RELATED CASES
6
on the following parties:
7
Peter A. Goldenring Attorneys for Petitioner and
8 Mark R. Pachowicz Plaintiff
PACHOWICZ GOLDENRING, PLC Las Posas Basin Water
9 6050 Seahawk St. Rights Coalition
Ventura, CA 93003-6622
10 805-642-6702
11 peter@gopro-law.com
12 Kevin M. O’Brien Attorneys for Petitioner and
Meredith E. Nikkel Plaintiff
13 Kelley M. Breen Las Posas Basin Water
Brian E. Hamilton Rights Coalition
14 Holly E. Tokar
15 DOWNEY BRAND LLP
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Fl
16 Sacramento, CA 95814
916-444-1000
17 kobrien@downeybrand.com
mnikkel@downeybrand.com
18 kbreen@downeybrand.com
19 bhamilton@downeybrand.com
cgermain@downeybrand.com (secretary)
20
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: I am readily familiar with my employer’s practice for the collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business,
21 correspondence would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the day on which it is collected. On the
date written above, following ordinary business practices, I placed for collection and mailing at the offices of
22 Stoel Rives LLP, 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, California 95814, a copy of the attached document
in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed as shown on the service list.I am aware that on
23 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is
more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in this declaration.
24 BY EMAIL: On the date written above, I emailed a copy of the attached documents to the addressee, as shown
on the service list.
25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this document was executed on April 15, 2022, at
26 Sacramento, California.
27
28 Dawn R. Forgeur, CCLS
S TOEL R IVES LLP
-6-
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE
SACRAMENTO
OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714
115159977.8 0041862- 00006
Preview
1 ELIZABETH P. EWENS (SB #213046) elizabeth.ewens@stoel.com 2 TIMOTHY M. TAYLOR (SB #144335) tim.taylor@stoel.com 3 JANELLE S.H. KRATTIGER (SB #299076) janelle.krattiger@stoel.com 4 HERACLIO PIMENTEL (SB #326751) heraclio.pimentel@stoel.com 5 STOEL RIVES LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 6 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916.447.0700 7 Facsimile: 916.447.4781 8 TIFFANY N. NORTH (SB #228068) County Counsel 9 JASON T. CANGER (SB #296596) County Counsel 10 jason.canger@ventura.org 800 South Victoria Avenue, L/C #1830 11 Ventura, CA 93009-1830 Telephone: 805.654.2590 12 Facsimile: 805.654.2185 13 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency GOV. CODE, § 6103 14 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 17 LAS POSAS VALLEY WATER RIGHTS CASE NO. 21CV03714 COALITION, an unincorporated association, 18 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER Petitioner and Plaintiff, MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE 19 AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF v. RELATED CASES 20 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER 21 MANAGEMENT AGENCY, a public entity, 22 Respondent and Defendant. 23 Action Filed: September 17, 2021 Trial Date: Not set. 24 25 26 27 28 S TOEL R IVES LLP -1- ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE SACRAMENTO OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714 115159977.8 0041862- 00006 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Fox Canyon Ground Water Management Agency (“FCGMA”) hereby responds and objects 3 to Plaintiff and Petitioner Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition’s 1 (“Plaintiff”) Notice of 4 Related Case (“Notice”), filed April 8, 2022. FCGMA is a Defendant and Respondent in each of 5 the following Santa Barbara County Superior Court cases listed in the Notice: 6 1. Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management 7 Agency, case no. 21CV03714, filed September 17, 2021 (“Allocation Ordinance Challenge”), 8 2. Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management 9 Agency, case no. 20CV02036, filed June 10, 2020 (“GSP Writ Action”), and 10 3. Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al. v. Fox Canyon Groundwater 11 Management Agency, case no. VENCI00509700, filed March 27, 2018 (“Basin Adjudication”). 12 13 As discussed further herein, Plaintiff’s Notice is untimely, Plaintiff waived its opportunity 14 to relate the cases, and the Allocation Ordinance Challenge is in a vastly different procedural 15 posture than the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. Accordingly, FCGMA respectfully 16 requests the Allocation Ordinance Challenge not be deemed related to the Basin Adjudication and 17 GSP Writ Action. 18 II. ARGUMENT 19 A. The Notice Is Untimely. 20 “The Notice of Related Case must be served and filed as soon as possible, but no later than 21 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known.” (Cal. Rules of 22 Court, rule 3.300, subd. (e), emphasis added.) 23 The Notice in this case was filed on April 8, 2022. The most recent of the three cases listed 24 in the Notice, the Allocation Ordinance Challenge, was filed more than six months earlier on 25 September 17, 2021. Upon the filing of the Allocation Ordinance Action, the facts and 26 circumstances of the GSP Writ Action and the Basin Adjudication, filed June 10, 2020 and 27 1 Plaintiff has referred to itself as both Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition and Las Posas 28 Basin Water Rights Coalition. Plaintiff has previously represented that these are the same entity. S TOEL R IVES LLP -2- ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE SACRAMENTO OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714 115159977.8 0041862- 00006 1 March 7, 2018, respectively, were known, and had been known, to Plaintiff. Plaintiff in the instant 2 action is a plaintiff party in both the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. Plaintiff has been 3 represented by the same counsel, Peter A. Goldenring and Downey Brand LLP, in all three actions 4 since the first case was filed in 2018. Even if, arguendo, the cases were relatable, the Notice was 5 required to be filed “no later than 15 days” after the Allocation Ordinance Challenge was filed, that 6 is, by October 2, 2021. Instead, Plaintiff waited more than six months, allegedly after “facts 7 concerning the existence of related cases” became known, to file the Notice. The Notice is therefore 8 untimely, and the Allocation Ordinance Challenge should not be deemed related to the Basin 9 Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. 10 B. Plaintiff Has Waived Its Opportunity To Claim the Cases Are Related. 11 “Generally, ‘waiver’ denotes the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. But it can also 12 mean the loss of an opportunity or a right as a result of a party's failure to perform an act it is 13 required to perform, regardless of the party's intent to abandon or relinquish the right.” (Platt 14 Pacific, Inc. v. Andelson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 307, 315, emphasis added.) 15 Here, filing of the Notice is not a right, but rather a requirement imposed by the California 16 Rules of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subd. (b) [“Whenever a party in a civil action 17 knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related . . . the party must serve and file a Notice 18 of Related Case.” (emphasis added)].) Rule 3.300 places the onus on both parties to submit the 19 notice of related case. (Harris v. Rojas (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 817, 820 [“Both parties had a duty 20 to file a notice of related case.”].) 21 FCGMA does not believe the cases meet the definition of “related case,” and therefore did 22 not file a notice of related case.2 If Plaintiff believed the cases were related, Plaintiff was required 23 2 24 The caption in the Third Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Re Administrative Record (“stipulation”), submitted on April 12, 2022, in case no. 21CV03714, suggests that the three cases 25 herein discussed are related. FCGMA’s agreement to the stipulation should not be interpreted as an agreement to relate the cases. The stipulation was signed and a limited extension was agreed 26 to as a courtesy to the Plaintiff which had not yet fulfilled its elected statutory duty to assemble and prepare the record. It is manifestly clear that the proper method for relating cases is by notice 27 provided in the form, manner, and time prescribed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. (See 28 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subd. (b)–(e).) S TOEL R IVES LLP -3- ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE SACRAMENTO OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714 115159977.8 0041862- 00006 1 to file its Notice in accordance with Rule 3.300, including satisfying the timing requirements of 2 subdivision (e). Plaintiff failed to do so in all three cases within the time required by Rule 3.300, 3 subdivision (e), and has therefore waived its opportunity to do so now. (See, e.g., Minton v. 4 Cavaney (1961) 56 Cal.2d 576, 581 [holding defendant waived statute of limitations defense by 5 failing to plead the defense in its answer or include in its general demurrer].) 6 C. The Cases Are Not Procedurally Aligned and there Is No Benefit to Relating the Cases. 7 8 FCGMA further opposes the Notice because all three cases are in different procedural 9 phases of litigation. The Basin Adjudication—the oldest of the three cases—was filed more than 10 three years before the Allocation Ordinance Challenge—the most recent of the three cases. The 11 Basin Adjudication has been pending since 2018 and is about to enter its phase 2 trial. In contrast, 12 the Allocation Ordinance Challenge, which includes a cause of action under the California 13 Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), is awaiting preparation and certification of the 14 administrative record. CEQA actions are entitled statutory preference under Public Resources 15 Code section 21167.1, subdivision (a), and the Allocation Ordinance Challenge will be ready to 16 proceed on the CEQA claim upon certification of the administrative record. Given the six-month 17 delay in bringing the Notice, there appears to be no need to relate the Allocation Ordinance 18 Challenge with the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. The Basin Adjudication has 19 continued steadfast unimpeded by the lack of relation to the Allocation Ordinance Challenge. 20 Relating the cases would, however, serve as an obstacle to achieving the legislative intent of the 21 statutory scheme giving CEQA actions “preference over all other civil actions.” (See Pub. 22 Resources Code, § 21167.1, subd. (a).) Thus, the Allocation Ordinance Challenge should not be 23 deemed related to the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action. 24 25 26 27 28 S TOEL R IVES LLP -4- ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE SACRAMENTO OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714 115159977.8 0041862- 00006 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, FCGMA requests that the Allocation Ordinance Challenge not be 3 deemed related to the Basin Adjudication and GSP Writ Action, and that the case be managed 4 separately and independently from the other matters. 5 Dated: April 15, 2022 STOEL RIVES LLP 6 By: 7 Elizabeth P. Ewens Timothy M. Taylor 8 Janelle S.H. Krattiger Heraclio Pimentel 9 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management 10 Agency 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S TOEL R IVES LLP -5- ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE SACRAMENTO OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714 115159977.8 0041862- 00006 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE 2 I declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. I am employed in the City and County of Sacramento and my business address is 500 Capitol Mall, 3 Suite 1600, Sacramento, California 95814. On April 15, 2022, at Sacramento, California, I served the attached document(s): 4 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT 5 AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES 6 on the following parties: 7 Peter A. Goldenring Attorneys for Petitioner and 8 Mark R. Pachowicz Plaintiff PACHOWICZ GOLDENRING, PLC Las Posas Basin Water 9 6050 Seahawk St. Rights Coalition Ventura, CA 93003-6622 10 805-642-6702 11 peter@gopro-law.com 12 Kevin M. O’Brien Attorneys for Petitioner and Meredith E. Nikkel Plaintiff 13 Kelley M. Breen Las Posas Basin Water Brian E. Hamilton Rights Coalition 14 Holly E. Tokar 15 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 621 Capitol Mall, 18th Fl 16 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-444-1000 17 kobrien@downeybrand.com mnikkel@downeybrand.com 18 kbreen@downeybrand.com 19 bhamilton@downeybrand.com cgermain@downeybrand.com (secretary) 20 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: I am readily familiar with my employer’s practice for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business, 21 correspondence would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the day on which it is collected. On the date written above, following ordinary business practices, I placed for collection and mailing at the offices of 22 Stoel Rives LLP, 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600, Sacramento, California 95814, a copy of the attached document in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed as shown on the service list.I am aware that on 23 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in this declaration. 24 BY EMAIL: On the date written above, I emailed a copy of the attached documents to the addressee, as shown on the service list. 25 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document was executed on April 15, 2022, at 26 Sacramento, California. 27 28 Dawn R. Forgeur, CCLS S TOEL R IVES LLP -6- ATTORNEYS AT LAW FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO NOTICE SACRAMENTO OF RELATED CASES -- 21CV03714 115159977.8 0041862- 00006