36
THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza 2 1800 30th Strcet, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301·5298 Telepholle 661-327-9661 Facsimile 661-327-1087 hllp://"wwyoungwooldridgc.com 3 4 STEVEN M. TORI GIANI, ESQ. (Bar No. 166773) ERNEST A. CONANT, ESQ. (BarNo. 89111) 5 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District; Kern Water Bank Authority; Oak Flat Water District; Semitropic Water Storage District; Tejon-Castac Water District; and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District See attachedfor Additional Parties and Counsel SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 6 7 ..., CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY, SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY, CALIFORNIA WATER IMP ACT NETWORK, CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CAROLEE KRIEGER, and JAMES CRENSHAW, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES and DOES 1-20, Respondents/Defendants; - g 22 00 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, • 23 '" '" N Respondents; 24 -;;; e '- 25 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & o u WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ZONE 7, ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, ANTELOPE VALLEY - EAST KERN WATER AGENCY, CASTAIC LAKE WATER 28 AGENCY, CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY, CITY OF YUBA, Case No. 34-2010-80000561 KERN'S AND REAL PARTIES' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION /filed concurrently with NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO DISMISS,. REQUEST FOR JUDICIA NOTICE} Assigned For All Purposes To: Hon. Timothy M. Frawley Date: November 5, 2010 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 29 Action Filed: June 3, 2010 No trial date set KERN'S AND REAL PARTIES' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION,TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

THE LAW OFFICES OF

Young WooldridgeLLP1 A LIMITED LlARILln PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSIONL CORPORATIONS

VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza2 1800 30th Strcet Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 93301middot5298

Telepholle 661-327-9661 Facsimile 661-327-1087 hllpwwyoungwooldridgccom3

4 STEVEN M TORI GIANI ESQ (Bar No 166773) ERNEST A CONANT ESQ (BarNo 89111)

bull 5 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

See attachedfor Additional Parties and Counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

6

7

CENTRAL DELTA WATER AGENCY SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY CALIFORNIA WATER IMP ACT NETWORK CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CAROLEE KRIEGER and JAMES CRENSHAW

PetitionersPlaintiffs

vs

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES and DOES 1-20

RespondentsDefendants

-g 22 00 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY bull 23 N Respondents

24 -

e -

25 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL amp o u WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ZONE

7 ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ANTELOPE V ALLEY - EAST KERN WATER AGENCY CASTAIC LAKE WATER

28 AGENCY CENTRAL COAST WATER AUTHORITY CITY OF YUBA

Case No 34-2010-80000561

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

filed concurrently with NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO DISMISS REQUEST FOR JUDICIA NOTICE

Assigned For All Purposes To Hon Timothy M Frawley

Date November 5 2010 Time 900 am Dept 29

Action Filed June 3 2010 No trial date set

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

2

s 0

0 OJ COACHELLA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICTC 1

0 0 COUNTY OF BUTTE COUNTY OF KINGS 0

CRESTLINE - LAKE ARROWHEAD WATEROJ = 0= AGENCY DESERT WATER AGENCY 3 DUDLEY RIDGE WATER DISTRICT

EMPIRE - WESTSIDE WATER DISTRICTQ 4 c KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY bull LITTLEROCK CREEK IRRIGATION t-oo =gt DISTRICT METROPOLITAN WATER 6 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA N 0 7 MOJAVE WATER AGENCY NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL amp WATER5 Ii 8 CONSERVATION DISTRICTOAK FLAT

en -

0 I- WATER DISTRICT PALMDALE WATER bull 9 DISTRICT PARAMOUNT FARMING 0- COMPANY LLC PLUMAS COUNTY N t-

FLOOD CONTROL amp WATER lt Q)2

11 CONSERVATION DISTRICT ROLL

OJ

0= INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION SAN 12Qc

BERNARDINO V ALLEY MUNICIPAL -JIIIIIII OJ OJ E-lt WATER DISTRICT SAN GABRIEL 00 bull 13

VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT t 14 SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCYN

=gt

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOODmiddot ltt CONTROL amp WATERCONSERVATION u -0 DISTRICT SANTA BARBARA COUNTY OJ 16 l FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER =g -= 17 CONSERVATION DISTRICT SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT bull 18 SEMITROPIC WATER STORAGE DISTRICT 0 0

lt ri SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY pound 19

TEJON-CASTAC WATER DISTRICT TEJON 0=

I- RANCH COMPANY TULARE LAKE BASIN - WATER STORAGE DISTRICT VENTURA eli I- 21 COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION0 DISTRICT WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER=gt =gt 22 00 COMPANY WHEELER RIDGE-MARICOPA bull 23 WATER STORAGE DISTRICT and DOES 41- N

6024 - Q 0 Real Parties in Interest -0 u fi 26 c

27

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERTO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

28

5

10

15

20

25

2

e 0 bJ Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water Agency -lt 1

g c Clifford SchulzEsq SBN 39381 0 bJ

gt Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847 3 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

GIRARD Q 4 t 400 Capitol Mall 27th Floor

bull Sacramento CA 95814 r-0 oo Telephone (916) 321-4500 r- 6 Facsimile (916) 321-4555 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY Iegt Iegt 7 ] 8 Additional Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest

Cf Z

9 0

Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 Iegt Iegt 0- Kevin M OBrien Esq SBN 122713 r-

621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor -lt

Iegt 11 Sacramento CA95814middot4731 Iegt c Telephone (916) 444-1000 0 12Q Facsimile (916) 444-2100 OJ-f-lt KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY 00 bull 13

t 14 Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN 213194 Q Roll Law Group PC -lt 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor u-lt 16 Los Angeles CA 90064 Telephone (310) 966-8264 Cg 17 Facsimile (310) 966-8810 eo

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY bull 18 PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC 0

- 19 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP -5 5 0

Stephen N Roberts Esq SBN 62538 Nossaman LLP 2100 50 California Street 34th Floor b San Francisco CA 94111 Q Q 22 00 Telephone 4154387213 bull 23 Facsimile 4153982438 N eo WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY Ii 24 eo PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC Q 0 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP u 0 TEJON RANCH COMPANY

26 OJ

27

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

28

5

10

15

20

25

s 0 0 tgtI

1 Robert D Thornton Esq SBN 72934 middot0

C Nossaman LLP 0

c 2 18101 Von Karman A venue 1800

Irvine CA 92612 OJ

0

Telephone 9498337800 3 Facsimile 9498337878 4B WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY = bull PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC r---00

6 c ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP t TEJON RANCH COMPANY N --lt Cgt - 7

8 en Z 0 bull 9

-

0-r--N lt

QJsect - 11 = 0

c 12c E-bull05 13

0011 u 0 NOiS II( 14 c- 0

ltUlt 0 16 =g 1- 17bull 18 0 0

lt Ei 19s = 0

if 21 0 0 22 bull 23 N

24 0 Q 0 u f 26OJ c 27

= 28

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION f0 DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 bull 5

II FACTS 1

A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented through the 1995 Monterey Amendment Contracts 1

B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented by 1996 2

C PCL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge Here 3

D The PCL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the PCL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers 3

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA 5

III 1HE COMPLAINT 6

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS 7

V LEGAL ARGUMENT 8

-= o A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State is 22 a Cause of Action Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the QO- Validity of Public Agency Contracts In Effect for Over 14 bull 23 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute ofLimitations 8 6 24 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day e o 25 Statute of Limitations 8 o u

26 on 2 Failure to File a Reverse Validation Action Within the c t 60-Day Period Effectively Validates and Immunizes the 27

28 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

pound o

1

2

3

4

bull 5

6

7

-g 22 QO

bull 23 N

c 24 t- Q t-o

25 o U t-

26OJ c

27 28

Public Agency Contracts at Issue and Operates as a Statute of Linlitations 8

3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the Contract to be Invalidated takes Effect (if not earlier) 9

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by August 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late 10

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action 11

b The PCl case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six (6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a pal1y to PCL 12

c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem 12

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Remedies are barred as welL 13

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred For Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCW A as a Defendant and Published a Defective Summons 13

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated 13

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Sumillons 14

VI CONCLUSION 15

II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

E ol OJ 0 1 0 0 2

1 = 3 =

4ii t c

bull 5 CASES

Barratt American v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Ca14th 685 11

Black v Department 0tMental Health (2000) 83 CalApp4t1 739 7

Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca13d 311 7

Caitfornia Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalApp4th 1406 89111315

City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335 9

Coachella Valley and Vector Control Dist v City ofIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4t1 12 14

Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248 CalApp2d 164 15

Davies v Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502 13

Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials Co (1981)21

0 123 CalApp3d 593 7

- as 22 00 Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) bull 23 88 CalApp4th 781 13 N 24 Friedland v City ofLong Beach (1998) Q 25 62 CalApp4th 835 912 u 26 Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) c 104 CalApp3d 631 9 27

28 111

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 2: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

2

s 0

0 OJ COACHELLA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICTC 1

0 0 COUNTY OF BUTTE COUNTY OF KINGS 0

CRESTLINE - LAKE ARROWHEAD WATEROJ = 0= AGENCY DESERT WATER AGENCY 3 DUDLEY RIDGE WATER DISTRICT

EMPIRE - WESTSIDE WATER DISTRICTQ 4 c KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY bull LITTLEROCK CREEK IRRIGATION t-oo =gt DISTRICT METROPOLITAN WATER 6 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA N 0 7 MOJAVE WATER AGENCY NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL amp WATER5 Ii 8 CONSERVATION DISTRICTOAK FLAT

en -

0 I- WATER DISTRICT PALMDALE WATER bull 9 DISTRICT PARAMOUNT FARMING 0- COMPANY LLC PLUMAS COUNTY N t-

FLOOD CONTROL amp WATER lt Q)2

11 CONSERVATION DISTRICT ROLL

OJ

0= INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION SAN 12Qc

BERNARDINO V ALLEY MUNICIPAL -JIIIIIII OJ OJ E-lt WATER DISTRICT SAN GABRIEL 00 bull 13

VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT t 14 SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCYN

=gt

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOODmiddot ltt CONTROL amp WATERCONSERVATION u -0 DISTRICT SANTA BARBARA COUNTY OJ 16 l FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER =g -= 17 CONSERVATION DISTRICT SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT bull 18 SEMITROPIC WATER STORAGE DISTRICT 0 0

lt ri SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY pound 19

TEJON-CASTAC WATER DISTRICT TEJON 0=

I- RANCH COMPANY TULARE LAKE BASIN - WATER STORAGE DISTRICT VENTURA eli I- 21 COUNTY WATERSHED PROTECTION0 DISTRICT WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER=gt =gt 22 00 COMPANY WHEELER RIDGE-MARICOPA bull 23 WATER STORAGE DISTRICT and DOES 41- N

6024 - Q 0 Real Parties in Interest -0 u fi 26 c

27

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRERTO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

28

5

10

15

20

25

2

e 0 bJ Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water Agency -lt 1

g c Clifford SchulzEsq SBN 39381 0 bJ

gt Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847 3 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

GIRARD Q 4 t 400 Capitol Mall 27th Floor

bull Sacramento CA 95814 r-0 oo Telephone (916) 321-4500 r- 6 Facsimile (916) 321-4555 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY Iegt Iegt 7 ] 8 Additional Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest

Cf Z

9 0

Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 Iegt Iegt 0- Kevin M OBrien Esq SBN 122713 r-

621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor -lt

Iegt 11 Sacramento CA95814middot4731 Iegt c Telephone (916) 444-1000 0 12Q Facsimile (916) 444-2100 OJ-f-lt KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY 00 bull 13

t 14 Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN 213194 Q Roll Law Group PC -lt 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor u-lt 16 Los Angeles CA 90064 Telephone (310) 966-8264 Cg 17 Facsimile (310) 966-8810 eo

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY bull 18 PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC 0

- 19 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP -5 5 0

Stephen N Roberts Esq SBN 62538 Nossaman LLP 2100 50 California Street 34th Floor b San Francisco CA 94111 Q Q 22 00 Telephone 4154387213 bull 23 Facsimile 4153982438 N eo WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY Ii 24 eo PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC Q 0 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP u 0 TEJON RANCH COMPANY

26 OJ

27

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

28

5

10

15

20

25

s 0 0 tgtI

1 Robert D Thornton Esq SBN 72934 middot0

C Nossaman LLP 0

c 2 18101 Von Karman A venue 1800

Irvine CA 92612 OJ

0

Telephone 9498337800 3 Facsimile 9498337878 4B WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY = bull PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC r---00

6 c ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP t TEJON RANCH COMPANY N --lt Cgt - 7

8 en Z 0 bull 9

-

0-r--N lt

QJsect - 11 = 0

c 12c E-bull05 13

0011 u 0 NOiS II( 14 c- 0

ltUlt 0 16 =g 1- 17bull 18 0 0

lt Ei 19s = 0

if 21 0 0 22 bull 23 N

24 0 Q 0 u f 26OJ c 27

= 28

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION f0 DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 bull 5

II FACTS 1

A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented through the 1995 Monterey Amendment Contracts 1

B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented by 1996 2

C PCL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge Here 3

D The PCL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the PCL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers 3

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA 5

III 1HE COMPLAINT 6

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS 7

V LEGAL ARGUMENT 8

-= o A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State is 22 a Cause of Action Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the QO- Validity of Public Agency Contracts In Effect for Over 14 bull 23 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute ofLimitations 8 6 24 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day e o 25 Statute of Limitations 8 o u

26 on 2 Failure to File a Reverse Validation Action Within the c t 60-Day Period Effectively Validates and Immunizes the 27

28 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

pound o

1

2

3

4

bull 5

6

7

-g 22 QO

bull 23 N

c 24 t- Q t-o

25 o U t-

26OJ c

27 28

Public Agency Contracts at Issue and Operates as a Statute of Linlitations 8

3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the Contract to be Invalidated takes Effect (if not earlier) 9

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by August 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late 10

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action 11

b The PCl case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six (6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a pal1y to PCL 12

c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem 12

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Remedies are barred as welL 13

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred For Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCW A as a Defendant and Published a Defective Summons 13

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated 13

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Sumillons 14

VI CONCLUSION 15

II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

E ol OJ 0 1 0 0 2

1 = 3 =

4ii t c

bull 5 CASES

Barratt American v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Ca14th 685 11

Black v Department 0tMental Health (2000) 83 CalApp4t1 739 7

Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca13d 311 7

Caitfornia Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalApp4th 1406 89111315

City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335 9

Coachella Valley and Vector Control Dist v City ofIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4t1 12 14

Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248 CalApp2d 164 15

Davies v Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502 13

Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials Co (1981)21

0 123 CalApp3d 593 7

- as 22 00 Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) bull 23 88 CalApp4th 781 13 N 24 Friedland v City ofLong Beach (1998) Q 25 62 CalApp4th 835 912 u 26 Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) c 104 CalApp3d 631 9 27

28 111

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 3: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

2

e 0 bJ Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water Agency -lt 1

g c Clifford SchulzEsq SBN 39381 0 bJ

gt Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847 3 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

GIRARD Q 4 t 400 Capitol Mall 27th Floor

bull Sacramento CA 95814 r-0 oo Telephone (916) 321-4500 r- 6 Facsimile (916) 321-4555 KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY Iegt Iegt 7 ] 8 Additional Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest

Cf Z

9 0

Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 Iegt Iegt 0- Kevin M OBrien Esq SBN 122713 r-

621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor -lt

Iegt 11 Sacramento CA95814middot4731 Iegt c Telephone (916) 444-1000 0 12Q Facsimile (916) 444-2100 OJ-f-lt KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY 00 bull 13

t 14 Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN 213194 Q Roll Law Group PC -lt 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor u-lt 16 Los Angeles CA 90064 Telephone (310) 966-8264 Cg 17 Facsimile (310) 966-8810 eo

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY bull 18 PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC 0

- 19 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP -5 5 0

Stephen N Roberts Esq SBN 62538 Nossaman LLP 2100 50 California Street 34th Floor b San Francisco CA 94111 Q Q 22 00 Telephone 4154387213 bull 23 Facsimile 4153982438 N eo WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY Ii 24 eo PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC Q 0 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP u 0 TEJON RANCH COMPANY

26 OJ

27

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

28

5

10

15

20

25

s 0 0 tgtI

1 Robert D Thornton Esq SBN 72934 middot0

C Nossaman LLP 0

c 2 18101 Von Karman A venue 1800

Irvine CA 92612 OJ

0

Telephone 9498337800 3 Facsimile 9498337878 4B WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY = bull PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC r---00

6 c ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP t TEJON RANCH COMPANY N --lt Cgt - 7

8 en Z 0 bull 9

-

0-r--N lt

QJsect - 11 = 0

c 12c E-bull05 13

0011 u 0 NOiS II( 14 c- 0

ltUlt 0 16 =g 1- 17bull 18 0 0

lt Ei 19s = 0

if 21 0 0 22 bull 23 N

24 0 Q 0 u f 26OJ c 27

= 28

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION f0 DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 bull 5

II FACTS 1

A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented through the 1995 Monterey Amendment Contracts 1

B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented by 1996 2

C PCL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge Here 3

D The PCL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the PCL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers 3

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA 5

III 1HE COMPLAINT 6

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS 7

V LEGAL ARGUMENT 8

-= o A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State is 22 a Cause of Action Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the QO- Validity of Public Agency Contracts In Effect for Over 14 bull 23 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute ofLimitations 8 6 24 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day e o 25 Statute of Limitations 8 o u

26 on 2 Failure to File a Reverse Validation Action Within the c t 60-Day Period Effectively Validates and Immunizes the 27

28 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

pound o

1

2

3

4

bull 5

6

7

-g 22 QO

bull 23 N

c 24 t- Q t-o

25 o U t-

26OJ c

27 28

Public Agency Contracts at Issue and Operates as a Statute of Linlitations 8

3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the Contract to be Invalidated takes Effect (if not earlier) 9

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by August 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late 10

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action 11

b The PCl case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six (6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a pal1y to PCL 12

c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem 12

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Remedies are barred as welL 13

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred For Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCW A as a Defendant and Published a Defective Summons 13

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated 13

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Sumillons 14

VI CONCLUSION 15

II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

E ol OJ 0 1 0 0 2

1 = 3 =

4ii t c

bull 5 CASES

Barratt American v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Ca14th 685 11

Black v Department 0tMental Health (2000) 83 CalApp4t1 739 7

Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca13d 311 7

Caitfornia Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalApp4th 1406 89111315

City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335 9

Coachella Valley and Vector Control Dist v City ofIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4t1 12 14

Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248 CalApp2d 164 15

Davies v Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502 13

Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials Co (1981)21

0 123 CalApp3d 593 7

- as 22 00 Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) bull 23 88 CalApp4th 781 13 N 24 Friedland v City ofLong Beach (1998) Q 25 62 CalApp4th 835 912 u 26 Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) c 104 CalApp3d 631 9 27

28 111

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 4: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

s 0 0 tgtI

1 Robert D Thornton Esq SBN 72934 middot0

C Nossaman LLP 0

c 2 18101 Von Karman A venue 1800

Irvine CA 92612 OJ

0

Telephone 9498337800 3 Facsimile 9498337878 4B WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY = bull PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC r---00

6 c ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP t TEJON RANCH COMPANY N --lt Cgt - 7

8 en Z 0 bull 9

-

0-r--N lt

QJsect - 11 = 0

c 12c E-bull05 13

0011 u 0 NOiS II( 14 c- 0

ltUlt 0 16 =g 1- 17bull 18 0 0

lt Ei 19s = 0

if 21 0 0 22 bull 23 N

24 0 Q 0 u f 26OJ c 27

= 28

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION f0 DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 bull 5

II FACTS 1

A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented through the 1995 Monterey Amendment Contracts 1

B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented by 1996 2

C PCL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge Here 3

D The PCL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the PCL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers 3

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA 5

III 1HE COMPLAINT 6

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS 7

V LEGAL ARGUMENT 8

-= o A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State is 22 a Cause of Action Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the QO- Validity of Public Agency Contracts In Effect for Over 14 bull 23 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute ofLimitations 8 6 24 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day e o 25 Statute of Limitations 8 o u

26 on 2 Failure to File a Reverse Validation Action Within the c t 60-Day Period Effectively Validates and Immunizes the 27

28 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

pound o

1

2

3

4

bull 5

6

7

-g 22 QO

bull 23 N

c 24 t- Q t-o

25 o U t-

26OJ c

27 28

Public Agency Contracts at Issue and Operates as a Statute of Linlitations 8

3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the Contract to be Invalidated takes Effect (if not earlier) 9

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by August 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late 10

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action 11

b The PCl case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six (6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a pal1y to PCL 12

c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem 12

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Remedies are barred as welL 13

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred For Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCW A as a Defendant and Published a Defective Summons 13

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated 13

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Sumillons 14

VI CONCLUSION 15

II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

E ol OJ 0 1 0 0 2

1 = 3 =

4ii t c

bull 5 CASES

Barratt American v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Ca14th 685 11

Black v Department 0tMental Health (2000) 83 CalApp4t1 739 7

Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca13d 311 7

Caitfornia Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalApp4th 1406 89111315

City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335 9

Coachella Valley and Vector Control Dist v City ofIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4t1 12 14

Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248 CalApp2d 164 15

Davies v Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502 13

Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials Co (1981)21

0 123 CalApp3d 593 7

- as 22 00 Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) bull 23 88 CalApp4th 781 13 N 24 Friedland v City ofLong Beach (1998) Q 25 62 CalApp4th 835 912 u 26 Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) c 104 CalApp3d 631 9 27

28 111

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 5: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 bull 5

II FACTS 1

A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented through the 1995 Monterey Amendment Contracts 1

B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented by 1996 2

C PCL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge Here 3

D The PCL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the PCL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers 3

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA 5

III 1HE COMPLAINT 6

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS 7

V LEGAL ARGUMENT 8

-= o A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State is 22 a Cause of Action Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the QO- Validity of Public Agency Contracts In Effect for Over 14 bull 23 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute ofLimitations 8 6 24 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day e o 25 Statute of Limitations 8 o u

26 on 2 Failure to File a Reverse Validation Action Within the c t 60-Day Period Effectively Validates and Immunizes the 27

28 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

pound o

1

2

3

4

bull 5

6

7

-g 22 QO

bull 23 N

c 24 t- Q t-o

25 o U t-

26OJ c

27 28

Public Agency Contracts at Issue and Operates as a Statute of Linlitations 8

3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the Contract to be Invalidated takes Effect (if not earlier) 9

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by August 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late 10

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action 11

b The PCl case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six (6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a pal1y to PCL 12

c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem 12

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Remedies are barred as welL 13

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred For Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCW A as a Defendant and Published a Defective Summons 13

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated 13

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Sumillons 14

VI CONCLUSION 15

II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

E ol OJ 0 1 0 0 2

1 = 3 =

4ii t c

bull 5 CASES

Barratt American v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Ca14th 685 11

Black v Department 0tMental Health (2000) 83 CalApp4t1 739 7

Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca13d 311 7

Caitfornia Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalApp4th 1406 89111315

City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335 9

Coachella Valley and Vector Control Dist v City ofIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4t1 12 14

Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248 CalApp2d 164 15

Davies v Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502 13

Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials Co (1981)21

0 123 CalApp3d 593 7

- as 22 00 Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) bull 23 88 CalApp4th 781 13 N 24 Friedland v City ofLong Beach (1998) Q 25 62 CalApp4th 835 912 u 26 Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) c 104 CalApp3d 631 9 27

28 111

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 6: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

pound o

1

2

3

4

bull 5

6

7

-g 22 QO

bull 23 N

c 24 t- Q t-o

25 o U t-

26OJ c

27 28

Public Agency Contracts at Issue and Operates as a Statute of Linlitations 8

3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the Contract to be Invalidated takes Effect (if not earlier) 9

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by August 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late 10

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action 11

b The PCl case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six (6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a pal1y to PCL 12

c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem 12

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Remedies are barred as welL 13

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred For Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCW A as a Defendant and Published a Defective Summons 13

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated 13

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Sumillons 14

VI CONCLUSION 15

II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

E ol OJ 0 1 0 0 2

1 = 3 =

4ii t c

bull 5 CASES

Barratt American v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Ca14th 685 11

Black v Department 0tMental Health (2000) 83 CalApp4t1 739 7

Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca13d 311 7

Caitfornia Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalApp4th 1406 89111315

City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335 9

Coachella Valley and Vector Control Dist v City ofIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4t1 12 14

Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248 CalApp2d 164 15

Davies v Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502 13

Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials Co (1981)21

0 123 CalApp3d 593 7

- as 22 00 Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) bull 23 88 CalApp4th 781 13 N 24 Friedland v City ofLong Beach (1998) Q 25 62 CalApp4th 835 912 u 26 Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) c 104 CalApp3d 631 9 27

28 111

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 7: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

E ol OJ 0 1 0 0 2

1 = 3 =

4ii t c

bull 5 CASES

Barratt American v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 Ca14th 685 11

Black v Department 0tMental Health (2000) 83 CalApp4t1 739 7

Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Ca13d 311 7

Caitfornia Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalApp4th 1406 89111315

City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335 9

Coachella Valley and Vector Control Dist v City ofIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4t1 12 14

Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248 CalApp2d 164 15

Davies v Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502 13

Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials Co (1981)21

0 123 CalApp3d 593 7

- as 22 00 Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) bull 23 88 CalApp4th 781 13 N 24 Friedland v City ofLong Beach (1998) Q 25 62 CalApp4th 835 912 u 26 Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) c 104 CalApp3d 631 9 27

28 111

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 8: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c 0 u

IgtJ C C C 0

Green v Community Redevelopment Agency (1979) c 96 CalApp3d 491 12 = 0 -

Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Ca14th 1 11 Q t c bull Hills for Everyone v LAFCO (1980) r-Q oo 105 CalApp3d 461 1112 c N Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) gtCO gtCO

178 CalApp4th 924 1115 s j

Z u

Kaatz v City ofSeaside (2006) bull 143CalApp4th 13 7

0 gtCOgtCO0

u 0 N c

l Katz v Campbell (2006) -lt 0 144 CalApp4th 1024 1415 0

c 0

Co

Planning and Conservation League v Department olWater Resources (2000) 0 f- 83 CalAppAth 892 351315 bull05 00U N Smith v Mt Diablo Un [fied School Dist (1976) 0

01ll 8 56 CalApp3d 412 9

U

0

lt -0

0 lt STATUTES AND CODES

0= Code of Civil Procedure section 315 12 bull I-00

-lt (i Code of Civil Procedure section 318 12 -fi I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 319 12 0 -

0 r I-

Code of Civil Procedure section 337 12 Q Q 00 Code of Civil Procedure section 338(a) 12 bull 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 340( a) 12 i 5 Co Code of Civil Procedure section 340(b) 12 I-0 U i Code of Civil Procedure section 343 12 c t

IV

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 9: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

Code of Civil Procedure section 345 12 1

2 Code of Civil Procedure section 43030(a) 7

3 Code of Civil Procedure section 43070 7 4

Code of Civil Procedure section 860 passim bull

Code of Civil Procedure section 863 6891014 6 Code of Civil Procedure section 864 91013 7

8 Code of Civil Procedure section 869 9 en Z o f 9 G Code of Civil Procedure section 10895 6

I Govermnent Code section 17700(c) 8 1]

Q) s 12 Govermnent Code section 53510 8

f-lt 13 Govermnent Code section 53511 8 sect bull u o 14 o 0 0 16 = =g j 17

bull 18 8

19 c 1 gt

bull 23 N ii 24OJ

0 Q 0 u

26 OJ c 27OJ

28 v

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 10: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

bull 5

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I INTRODUCTION

The second and third causes of action of Plaintiffs First Amended Petition fot Writ of

Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) seek to invalidate

by reverse validation under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) and by writ ofmandate

respectively public agency contracts that were approved and executed in December 1995 and

implemented over 14 years ago in August 1996 Under those contracts the Department of Water

Resources (DWR) implemented the Monterey Amendment (described more fully below)

and pursuant to a term of the Monterey Amendment transferred lands then known as the Kern

Fan Element (KFE lands) to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) KCWA in a

transaction that was not referred to in or required by the Monterey Amendment subsequently

transferred KFE lands to another local public agency the Kern Water Bank Authority

(KWBA) which developed a water bank on the lands known as the Kern Water Bank

As explained below the second cause of action is time-barred because the Monterey

Amendment and the resulting real property transfers the Complaint seeks to invalidate have been

in effect since 1995 and 1996 and the applicable statute of limitations expired about 14

years ago The second cause of action is also barred because Plaintiffs failed to name KCWA as

a defendant and failed to publish the summons as required by the Validation Statutes Since the

third cause of action is a disguised validation action it suffers from the same defects as the

second cause of action and is also time-barred Thus this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 21

ltgt

matters the Complaint seeks to invalidate -g 22 exgt II FACTS) bull 23 ltII A The 1994 Monterey Agreement Statement of Principles Implemented N ltII

through the 195 Monterey Amendment Contracts 24 ltII I-

Q 0 25s u

26 c I Primarily the facts are from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes ofthis demurrer and 27 motion only Real Parties do not concede or admit that the Complaints factual statements are accurate

28 Additional facts are taken from Real Parties Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed concurrently

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 11: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

E c 0 middotc OJ

1 Begilming in 1960DWR entered into water supply contracts for delivery of State Water 0 0 c Project (SWP) water to agricultural andurban water contractors (Contractors) (Complaint 2 = = e 72) The amount of water originally anticipated for delivery to each contractor is lqown as the 3

Table A amount (ld 77) The SWP has delivered less water than originally expected (ld 4B 76) Prompted by water supply shortages in 1994 DWR and certain agricultural and urban bull ao ltgt Contractors signed a Statement of Principles for possible amendments to Contractors water 6r--

N

supply contracts known as the Monterey Agreement (Jd 8182) DWR and most7 5 Contractors implemented the Monterey Agreement principles by entering into a Monterey 8

en Z 0 Amendment to their water supply contracts in 1995 (Jd 1182 86i The Monterey bull 9

a- Amendment added Article 52 which provides for DWRs transfer ofthe KFE lands to KCWA r--N

l -lt C and required KCWA and another contractor to retire 45000 acre-feet of Table A amount (Id QJe 11C

sect OJ

c 83) The Monterey Amendment also made other changes to the water supply contracts 12Q- 0

including how SWP water is allocated in times of shortage (Jd)bull 13 ao a- B The Monterey Amendment and the KFE Lands Transfer Contracts Came II( 14N

ltgt Into Existence in 1995 and Were Fully Implemented By 1996 u a-

To implement the Monterey Agreement KCWA and other Contractors each approved 0 160 on =g I and executed a separate Monterey Amendment with DWR in December 1995 (Complaint OJ I- 170

85) On December 13 1995 DWR and KCWA executed a contract providing for the transfer ofbull 18 5c

-lt ii the KFE lands to KCW A (Exchange Agreement or State Transfer Contract) (RJN Exh 2) 19-5 I-

c = which Plaintiffs allege is the first part of a two-part transfer of the KFE lands (Jd 145) The OJ alleged second part of the transfer is a contract between KCWA and the KWBA (Local Transfer

[f) 21 0

22 Contract) (RJN Exh 14) providing for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA (Jd0 c-oo

158) On or about August 8 1996 the Monterey Amendment took effect and was bull 23 N implemented and DWR transferred the KFE lands to KCW A3 (Jd 8889 RJN Exh 4) fj 24 0 Q

e U l-

2 The Complaint erroneously refers to the Amendment in the plural It was a single amendment with several subparts and is referred to in the subject EIR as a single amendment 26

OJ c

OJ 27 3 Before implementation on October 26 1995 KCW A adopted Resolution 31-95 approving and authorizing execution of the State Transfer Contract and adopted Resolution 32-95 approving and

28 authorizing execution of the Local Transfer Contract (RJN Exhibits (Exh) 1 0 11) On October 30 1995 KWBA adopted Resolution 95-05 approving and authorizing execution ofthe Local Transfer

2 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 12: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

In a separate transaction KCWA transferred the KFE lands toKWBA on August 9 1996 (ld 1 89 RJN Exhs 14 IS) 2

C peL v DWR Different Plaintiffs Filed and Later Dismissed a Reverse 3 Validation Action Challenging Contracts Plaintiffs Challenge

4 After contractor Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) certified a final EIR for the

5 Monterey Amendment project (Complaint 84) the Planning and Conservation League Plumas

[--6 fl County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Citizens Planning Association of C -C 7

Santa Barbara County Inc (collectively the PCL plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Including Invalidation of State Contracts) and Petition for

Writ of Mandate (PCL Complaint) (RJN Exh 3) The PCL Complaint consisted of four

CEQA causes of action and a fifth cause of action to invalidate the Monterey Amendment and

the State Transfer Contract between DWR and KCWA (Validation Cause of Action) (ld pp

14-15 RJN Exh 7 Complaint 87) Neither the petitioners nor plaintiffs in this current action

nor KCWA or KWBA were parties to that action (ld)

On August 15 1996 the trial court entered judgment against the PCL plaintiffs (ld

88) In Planning and Conservation League v Department ofWater Resources (2000) 83

CalApp4th 892 (peL) the judgment was reversed (Complaint 90) PCL held that DWR

(not CCW A) must act as lead agency and prepare a new EIR for the Monterey Amendment and

that the trial court erroneously dismissed the reverse Validation Cause of Action on procedural

grounds (ld 91-92)

D The peL Reverse Validation Cause of Action was Dismissed in 2003 and the peL Settlement Agreement and Resultant CEQA Order Did Not Invalidate or Set Aside the Transfer Contracts or the KFE Lands Transfers

bull 23 In May 2003 the PCL plaintiffs DWR and others entered into a settlement agreement

6 24 (Settlement Agreement) (Complaint 94 RJN Exh 5) The Settlement Agreement (among f e 25 o other things) required D WR to prepare a new EIR on the Monterey Amendment plus the

u 26 additional terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement including Attachment A l c

l l 27

28 Contract (RJN Exh 12) On November 14 1995 KCWA adopted Resolution 39-95 approving and authorization execution of its Monterey Amendment with DWR (RJN Exh

3

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAl)SES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 13: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

E 0 ltl 0 1 OJ amendment4 (Monterey Plus) (Id 95) The Attachment A amendment was solely for middotc 0 0 0 clarification purposes replacing the word entitlement with Table A amount and requiring 2OJ = = 0 DWR to prepare biennial reliability reports (Id 104 RJN Exh 16 Amendment l0 35 to the 3

= Water Supply Contract Between DWR and KCWA Recital H pp 3-4) Co 4 t c On May 20 2003 the Superior Court entered an Order Pursuant to Public Resources bull --QO

C Code Section 211689 of CEQ A (CEQA Order) (RIN Exh 6) The CEQA Order approved 6 M

7 the Settlement Agreement the writ of mandate and addressed administration and operation of

the SWP and the KWB Lands pending discharge of the writ (Id) The CEQ A Order states 8 Z

u

0 9i= This Court further finds that this Order includes only those mandates necessary

l bull 0 to achieve compliance with [CEQA] In the interim until DWR files its return 0 in compliance with the Writ of Mandate and this Court orders discharge of theU M

t-

Writ of Mandate the administration and operation of the State Water Project and l 2

11 [KWB Lands]5 shall be conducted pursuant to the Monterey Amendments as = c supplemented by the Attachment A Amendments and the other terms and 0 12Co

0bull OJ conditions of the Settlement Agreement (pp 2-3) (Emphasis added) f-

c 13bulll QO U 0 The Settlement Agreement and theCEQA Order did not invalidate or set aside or make 1 M 140

ltgtOe ineffective or interim the Monterey Amendment the KFE transfer contracts or the transfer ofth 0

U KFE lands (RIN Exhs 56) The Settlement Agreement and CEQ A Order also did not require 0 -0

OJ 16 =g DWR to enter into any further contracts to continue operations under the Monterey Amendment =j 17 Xl or other existing contracts (Id)O bull 18 0

l 0

r The Settlement Agreement also includes provisions not mentioned in the Complaint It19 gt provides that KWBA shall retain title to the KWB Lands (RIN Exh 5 VA p 22) In 0 - addition it requires that upon occurrence of certain conditions the PCL plaintiffs shall file if 21 b ltgt

request for dismissal without prejudice of reverse Validation Cause of Action the fifth cause of ltgt 22 QO

action ofthePCL Complaint (Id AA p 7 NN p 8 VILE at 30) On November 12 bull 23 N

6 24 4 The Complaint herein alleges Petitioners do not oppose the elements of the Settlement Agreement that are beneficial to the environment (Complaint 104) The Complaint does not allege that any of the0 Co 0 provisions ofthe Settlement Agreement are invalid u 1 26 c 5 The Settlement Agreement defines KWB Lands as the property known as the Kern Fan Element as 1 27 more specifically described in that certain Deed executed by the Kern County Water Agency in favor ofOJ

KWBA dated August 9 1996 and recorded in the Official Records of Kern County as Instrument No 28 0196101606 (RJN Exh 5 R p 6)

4 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 14: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

6

7

7gt g 22

s o 0 OJ

1 2003 the Superior Court granted the PCL plaintiffs proposed order dismissing the reverse 0

middot0 o i 2 Validation Cause of Action (RJN Exh 8) OJ

c o 3 =

Finally the Settlement Agreement provides that the statute oflimitations to the

Q Validation Cause of Action is tolled as to the PCL plaintiffs (only) until forty-five (45) days after 4

c 5 = tIling of the Notice of Determination (NOD) (RJN Exh 5 VI1F amp 1) The 45-day period bull expired on June 192010 (see below NOD filed on May 5 2010) with no such action filed by

any of the PCL plaintiffs The Settlement Agreement did not allow for anyone other than the

PCL plaintiffs to benefit from the tolling agreement or issue any type of challenge upon the

issuance ofthe NOD and none of the Plaintiffs in this action was a PCL plaintiff (ld)

E DWRs New EIR and Notice of Determination under CEQA

DWRcertified an ErR for Monterey Plus on February 2010 and filed its NOD on May

520106 (Complaint 101) The NOD advises that DWR will continue operation under the

existing Monterey Amendment to the long-term water supply contracts (including the Kern

Water Bank transfer) and the existing Settlement Agreement entered in peL v DWR (including

the Attachment A amendment [all] previously executed by the Department and the other

parties (RJN Exh 9 NOD pp 1-2 Complaint 102) The NOD did not take any action to

create or amend any contract (Id) It did not modify the Monterey Amendment the Settlement

Agreement the State Transfer Contract conveying the KFE lands from DWR to KCWA or the

subsequent Local Transfer Contract conveying KFE lands to the KWBA (Id) The NOD does

not state it is intended to provide or serve as additional or operative authorization approval or

ratification for any of the existing contracts or the KFE lands transfers (ld) Finally the NOD

00 also does not state that any new authorization or approval of the existing contracts is required or

bull 23 that any ratification or additional contract is needed to continue operating under the existing to

24 contracts or transfer (Id) E o e 25 o u

26 c 27 28 6 The writ of mandate issued in the peL case in 2003 was discharged by the Sacramento County Superio

COltli by order dated August 272010 (RJN Exh 19) 5

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 15: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

6

7

III THE COMPLAINT 1

2 On June 4 2010 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and

3 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) The Complaint consists of three causes of

4 action The first cause of action is for violation of the CEQA (Complaint pp 37-56) 7

bull 5 The second cause of action is styled as a Reverse Validation Action against DWR r-oo o

under the Validation Statutes (CCP sect 860 et seq) It initially states that it challenges the

validity ofthe fee-simple transfer between DWR and KCWA that conveys in a two-step

transaction the Kern Water Bank from the State to [KWBA] based on Constitutional (and

other) grounds (Complaint-r 307) However the second cause of action (at-r-r 329 -336) also

challenges the entire Monterey Amendment on statutory and constitutional grounds With

respect to the Kern Fan Element lands the Complaint alleges the transfer is authorized by Article

528 of the Monterey Amendment and is implemented through two separate transfer contracts

The first is a December 13 1995 Agreement for Exchange of the Kern Fan Element of the

Kern Water Bank between DWR and KCWA (State Transfer Contract) (Complaint -r 145) and

the second is an unspecified exchange agreement between KCW A and KWBA (Local Transfer

Contract) (Complaint -r 158) The Complaint does not name any party to the Local Transfer

Contract (ie KCWA or KWBA) as a defendant nor does the published amended Summons

(CCP sect 863 RJN Exh 17 [Amended Swnmons])9 1eading Real Parties to believe that the

second cause of action despite some confusing language in the validation cause of action (for

7 Under CEQA law response to that portion of the Complaint is not due until after the administrative record has been prepared (CCP sect 10895) Consequently this demurrer and motion to dismiss deals only with the second and third non-CEQA causes of action

bull 23 8 The Complaint confusingly and inconsistently alleges Article 52 (and other articles of the water supply N contracts) is pari of the Monterey Amendments (Complaint 119) the Monterey Plus Agreement Q 24 (Complaint 308) and the Monterey Plus Amendments contracts (Complaint 315) In fact all the Articles in the Contractors water supply contracts that Plaintiffs challenge or complain about (Articles Q 0 25 0 U I- 18212251525355 and 56 (eg Complaint 1334)) are found only in the 1995 Monterey I- Amendment to the water supply contracts implemented in 1996 (RJN Exh 1) In contrast those 26 c ariicles are not pari of the alleged Plus contract provisions only contained in the 2003 Settlement 1 27 Agreement and subsequent Attachment A amendment (Complaint 9814-17) (RJN Exhs 5 16)

28 9 For the Courts information the same plaintiffs have filed a second action in Kern County challenging this second transfer (RJN Exh 18)

6 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 16: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1 example 307) is only challenging the Monterey Amendmentand the action by DWR that

6

7

8

9

2 transferred the subject realproperty to KCW A

3 The third cause of action is styled as a Mandate Action against both DWR apdJor

4 KCWA as respondents but repeats verbatim and contains only allegations stated in the second

5 cause of action Like the second the third cause of action alleges that the transfer of the KFE bull lands is invalid due to Constitutional violations (Complaint 353) and that the Monterey

Amendment violates both statutory and constitutional obligations ofDWR Although

styled differently from the second the third cause of action seeks the same result based on the

same Constitutional theories invalidation of the Monterey Amendment as a whole and of the

contracts authorizing transfer of the KFE lands

This demurrer and motion to dismiss should be granted without leave to amend as to the

second and third causes of action for the following reasons 1) failure to state a cause of action as

they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over all the

matters to be invalidated therein for failure to name KCWA as a defendant andor 3) failure to

publish the Summons as required by the Validation Statutes

IV DEMURRER STANDARDS

For a demurrer the court accepts as true properly pleaded allegations of fact but not

contentions deductions or conclusions of fact or law (Blank v Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal3d 311

318) Allegations in the complaint remain subject to facts of which the court may take judicial

notice (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sect 43070 Del E Webb Corp v Structural Materials

Co (1981) 123 CalApp3d 593 604 (a pleading valid on its face may nevertheless be subject to -5 o g 22 demurrer when matters judicially noticed by the court render the complaint meritless )) A QOO-bull 23 court may disregard allegations contrary to the law or to a fact which may be judicially noticed N 24 (Black v Department ofMental Health (2000) 83 CalAppAth 739 745) When a ground for == Q 0 25 objection to a complaint such as the statute of limitations appears on its face or from matters of 0 u 2 26 which the cOUli mayor must take judicial notice a demurrer on that ground is proper (Id CCP Igt OJ

c 1 OJ

27 sect 43030(a)) A defense that the statute oflimitations bars a validation action may be challenged OJ

28 by demurrer or motion to dismiss (Kaatz v City (2006) 143 CalApp4th 1328)

7 KERNmiddotS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 17: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

bull 5

1 V LEGAL ARGUMENT

A The Second and Third Causes of Action Fail to State a Cause of Action2 Because Plaintiffs Challenge to the Validity of Public Agency Contracts In

3 Effect for Over 14 Years Is Time-Barred by the Statute of Limitations

4 1 Reverse Validation Actions are Subject to a 60-Day Statute of Limitations

The procedures applicable to validation and reverse validation actions are set forth at

California Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq Section 860 provides

A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law10 is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter and for 60 days

thereafter bring an action to determine the validity of such matter The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem (Emphasis added)

An interested party may also bring an action to determine the validity of such matter

within the time specified in Section 860 (CCP sect 863) The initiation ofa validation

proceeding by an interested person is referred to as a reverse validation action (California

Commerce Casino Inc v Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 CalAppAth 1406 1420 fn 12)

Commerce Casino supra discussed the reason for the brief 60-day limitations period

A validation action implements important policy considerations [A] central theme in the validating procedures is speedy determination of the validity of the public agencys action The validating statutes should be construed so as to uphold their purpose ie the acting agencys need to settle promptly all questions about the validity of its action (Id at pp 1420-1421 internal citations omitted)

That public policy could not be better illustrated than in this case where the Plaintiffs

challenge public agency actions from 1995-1996 upon which numerous government agencies 21

and others have relied extensively for over 14 years g 22 00 2 Failure To File a Reverse Validation Action Within the 60-Day Periodbull 23 Effectively Validates and Immunizes the Public Agency Contracts atN

ii Issue and Operates as a Statute of Limitations 24 I-

c -0 25 Under the statutory scheme an agency may indirectly but effectively validate its 0 u

26 action by doing nothing to validate it unless an interested person brings an action of his own c 27

28 10 In this case Plaintiffs allege such other law to be Government Code sections 17700(c) 53510 and 53511 (Complaint 304305)

8 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITlES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 18: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

e 0 oj 101

E under section 863 within the 60-day period the agencys action will become immune from attack 1 0

0 whether it is legally valid or not (Commerce Casino supra 146 CalAppAth at 1420 quoting2101

j = =

3 0 City ofOntario v Superior Court (1970) 2 Ca13d 335341-342 Friedland v City off-ongBeac

(1998) 62 CalApp4th835 851 (same)) Although section 863 provides that an interested person 4g -= may bring a validating proceeding section 869 says he must do so or be forever barred from bull r-oo ltgt contesting the validity of the agencys action in a court oflaw (City ofOntario supra2 Cal3d r- 6 N 7 at 341) As to matters which have been or which could have been adjudicated ina validationCgt Cgt 7 sect 8 action such matters -- including constitutional challenges -- must be raised within the statutory z

0 limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived (Commerce Casino supra 146bull 9 Cgt Cgt 0- CalAppAth at 1420 quoting Friedland supra 62 CalApp4th at 846-847 (gift of public funds r-Nl 7 lt Cgt claim under Constitution subject to Validation Statutes 60-day limitations period) Cgt 11 = 3 The 60-Day Statute of Limitations Commences to Run When the0 12Q-= -i Contract to be Invalidated Takes Effect (if not earlier) bull 13

00 Code of Civil Procedure section 860 permits a public agency to bring a validation action N t 14 ltgt upon the existence of any matter [and 60 days thereafter] which under any other law is 0( ult authorized to be determined pursuant to the validation statutes Section 863 permits an -0 -i 16 0 interested party to bring a reverse validation action as to such matter within the time specified 17

Of] in Section 860 If such matter is a contract it is deemed to have come into existence upon bull 18 0 0

authorization (CCP sect 864) The date of authorization is the date the public agency duly lt ti 19 = approves the contract and authorizes its execution (Ibid) (Smith v MtDiablo Unified Sch 0

Dist (1976) 56 CalApp3d 412416-417 (motion is equivalent to resolution) Graydon v en 21 ltgt ltgt

Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 CalApp3d 631641-642 (same)) ltgt 22 00 Commerce Casino supra addressed the question of when contracts signed by thebull 23 Governor and five tribes but not immediately effective came into existence for purposes of the 24 0 0 Q validation statuteS On June 21 2004 the Governor and five tribes entered into amended gaming 0 u compacts allowing for operation of additional slot machines (Commerce Casino supra 146 l 26 -= CalAppAth at 1412) Proposition lA required that such compacts be ratified by the Legislature 27

(Id) The Legislature ratified the amended compacts in Assembly Bill 687 (AB 687) on July 128

9 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAlJSES OF ACTION

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 19: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

6

7

OJ OJ

1 2004 which was an urgency measure that took effect immediately (Id at 1413) Plaintiffs filed

2 suit nearly eleven months later on May 272005 to invalidate AB 687 based on three (3)

3 different constitutionally-based legal theories in nine (9) causes of action styled as WTit of

4 mandate declaratory relief and injunctive relief The Court of Appeal held that each theory was

5 an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus should have been brought bull within 60 days of July 1 2004 when the compacts though not immediately implemented had

come into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes (Id at 1430-1432)

4 The Second and Third Causes of Action Challenging the Validity of Public Agency Contracts in Effect by Augusf 1996 Are About 14 Years Too Late

The second and third causes of action seek to invalidate the Monterey Amendment in its

entirety and focuses on the element of the Amendment which allegedly authorized a two-part

KFE lands transfer based on two separate contracts the State Transfer Contract between DWR

and KCWA and one day later the Local Transfer Contract between KCWA and KWBA (Eg

Complaint 8 9 145 153 158) Real Parties do not agree with the Complaints

characterization of the KFE lands transfers as being a single two-step transaction from DWR to

KWBA In fact the KFE lands were first conveyed by DWR to KCWA pursuant to Article 52 0

the Monterey Amendment and subsequent State Transfer Contract while KCW A later conveyed

KFE lands to KWBA in a separate transaction pursuant to the separate Local Transfer Contract

between those two parties only However the second and third causes of action are time-barred

regardless of how the transfers are characterized t3 21 The Monterey Amendment between DWR and all participating Contractors and the State g 22 IX) and Local contracts for transfer of the KFE lands (and associated deeds) had all been executed bull 23 N implemented and taken effect by August 91996 (Complaint 89 RJN Exhs 124 14 15) s 24 As the statute of limitations is 60 days (CCP sect 860) the time to file a suit to invalidate the Q

0

0 25 Monterey Amendment and the Kern Fan Element transfer contracts expired at the latest 11 byu 26 OJ c

OJ 27 II The 60-day period may have expired several months earlier since the Monterey Amendment and the

28 KFE lands transfer contracts were fully executed on December 13 1995 and approved by resolutions adopted prior to that date (CCP sectsect 860864) (RJN Exhs 1210-1314)

10 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONro DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 20: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1 October 9 1996 - or nearly 14 years before the filing of this action -- under any possible

2 construCtion of the facts

a Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid the 60-Day Limitation Period by Pleading a 3 Duplicative Third Cause of Action styled as a Mandate Action

4 The third cause of action is time-barred for the above reasons -- even though it is styled

bull 5 as a mandate action In Commerce Casino supra plaintiffs constitutional theories

challenging AB 687 were an implicit attack on the validity of the amended compacts and thus

although no reverse validation action had been pled the 60-day statute of limitations applied 8

even though the action was styled as a writ of mandate (Commerce Casino supra 146 9

CalApp4th at 1414-1416 (3 constitutionally-based theories pled in causes ofaction styled as wri

of mandate declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at invaliding tribal contracts should have

been raised in reverse validation action and were barred by 60-day statute of limitations)

Hollywood Park Land Company LLC v Golden State Transportation (2009) 178 CalAppAth

924946 (Commerce Casino held the plaintiffs constitutional challenges to AB 687 were also

an attack on the validity middotof the amendment compacts which should have been brought within 60

days of the effective date of the amended compacts)) The nature of the governmental action

being challenged rather than the basis for the challenge is what determines the applicable

procedure (Hensler v City ofGlendale (1994) 8 Cal4th 122-23 Hillsfor Everyone v LAFCO bull 18 o o (1980) 105 CalApp3d 461 468 (it is the nature of the governmental action being challenged ii 19 c t rather than the basis for the challenge that determinesmiddotthe procedure to be utilized)) = 20 Here Plaintiffs have repackaged in the third cause of action under the guise of ill 21 mandate the exact same allegations from the second reverse validation cause ofaction g 22 QO (compare Complaint 325-336 with 350-361) presumably to seek to avoid the procedural bull 23 15 requirements and the short statute of limitations applicable to reverse validation actions The s 24 E third cause of action challenges the validity of the same governmental actions or contracts that c 0 25 u 0 are challenged in the second cause of action Under Commerce Casino and Supreme Court

26 c precedent the 60-day reverse validation statute of limitations applies and the third cause of 27 action is also time-barred (Barratt American v City ofRancho Cucamonga (2005) 37 CalAth 28

685 705 (Where the Legislature has provided for a validation action to review government II

KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION _

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 21: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

E o u i

middotc OJ 10 actions mandamus is unavailable to bypass the statutory remedy after the limitations period has 0 0 o 2 expired) Friedland supra 62 CalApp41h 835 846-847 (even constitutional challenges to OJ =

3 gt

matters which could have been adjudicated in validation action must be raised within the

4 statutory limitations period in section 860 et seq or they are waived)) C t c 5 However even if the third cause of action was not subject to the 60-day limitations bull

period applicable to reverse validation actions it would still be time-barred under all conceivable

statutes of limitation (Eg CCP sectsect 315 318 319 337 338(a) 340(a)-(b) 343 345)

b The PCL case is not helpful to Plaintiffs because the reverse Validation Cause of Action in that Case was Dismissed over Six ( 6) Years Ago and Plaintiffs are not and cannot become a party to PCL

The same contracts Plaintiffs seek to invalidate in this case (except the Local Transfer

Contract) were the subject of a reverse Validation Cause of Action filed by the PCL plaintiffs in

February 1996 (RJN Exhs 3 7) However the Settlement Agreement required that the PCL

plaintiffs dismiss the reverse Validation Cause of Actionand the Superior Court granted their

request for dismissal on November 122003 (RJN Exh 8) At that time the PCL case only

consisted of four CEQA causes of action and necessarily became an in personam mandate (as

opposed to an in rem reverse validation) action (Hillsor Everyone supra 1 05CalApp3d at

467) Thus like the Local Transfer Contract (which was not the subject of PCL or any other

action at least prior to 2010) the Monterey Amendment and State Transfer Contract are deemed

validated and immune from attack Moreover Plaintiffs in this case were not party to PCL the

case is over and it is too late for them to intervene in that action now (Green v Community

Redevelopment Agency (1979) 96 CalApp3d 491498-501) g 22 CO c The CEQA NOD does not solve Plaintiffs Statute of Limitations Problem bull 23 The demurring parties are perplexed as to why Plaintiffs ignore the clear and N Ii 24 J

longstanding 60-day statutemiddotof limitations Plaintiffs appear to have a novel legal theory that the o 255 limitations period begins to run upon publication of the [CEQA] NOD for the Monterey Plus u J

c 26 Amendments on May 5 2010 (Complaint 310) Real Parties are not aware of any case law

27 orother authority that supports Plaintiffs theory that publication of a CEQA NOD is a condition 28 precedent or must occur before a public agency or interested patiy can file an in rem action to

12 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITJESIN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 22: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

6

7

8

9

1 determine the validity of a contact under the Validation Statutes Moreover Plaintiffs theory is

2 at odds with the unequivocal language of Section 864 which provides that a contract is

3 authorized (and comes into existence for purposes of the Validation Statutes) when the public

4 agency thereto approves and authorizes its execution by resolution or equivalent action

S Therefore a contract can be subject to the Validation Statues even before it is executed bull Plaintiffs theory is also contrary to case law holding that a contract comes into existence for

reverse validation purposes at least by the time it takes effect (Eg Commerce Casino supra)

The contracts at issue were approved and executed in 1995 took effect in 1996 and have been in

effect (and relied upon) for about 14 years Plaintiffs novel theory lacks legal merit

d If Plaintiffs non-CEQA Causes of Action are barred their Constructive Trust and other non-CEQA Rernedies are barred as well

Finally because the second and third causes of action are time-barred so too are the non-

CEQA remedies sought by the Complaint including invalidation of the transfer and imposition 0

direct or constructive trust conditions relating to the Kern Water Bank (Complaint Prayer 3-6) If the substantive right is barred by the statute of limitations the remedy necessarily falls

with it (Embarcadero v County ofSanta Barbara (2001) 88 781 793 Davies v

Krasna (1975) 14 Ca13d 502516)

In conclusion the second and third causes of action should be dismissed because they are

time-barred and consequently all non-CEQA remedies are barred as well

B The Second and Third Causes of Action are also Barred for Lack of Jurisdiction because Plaintiffs failed to Name KCWA as aDefendant and Published a Defective Summons

1 A Reverse Validation Summons Shall Name as a Defendant the Public Agency Whose Action is Being Challenged or the Court Lacks

bull 23 Jurisdiction Over the Matter to be Invalidated

i5 24 In a reverse validation action -oE 25 u o The public agency shall be a defendant and shall be served with the

26 summons and complaint in the action in the manner provided by law for c the service of a summons in a civil action the summons shall be 27 directed at the public agency If the [plaintiffJ fails to complete publication and to file proof thereof in the action within 60 days from 28 the filing of his complaint the action shall be forthwith dismissed on the

13 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 23: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5 22 00

motion of the public agency unless [good cause is shown] (CCP sect1 863) (Emphasis added)

2 The public agency referred to in Section 863 is necessarily the same public agency

3 referred to in Section 860 or in other words the agency whose action is to be tested (PCL

4 supra 83 CalApp4th at 922) It is that public agency that pursuant to Section 863 shall be a bull 5

oo o r-

defendant in the complaint and published summons (Jd CCP sect 863 (emphasis added)) The 6

N public agency whose action is challenged is an indispensible party defendant (PCL supra 83

7 CalApp4th at 925-926 Katz v Campbell (2006) 144 CalApp4th 1024 1033 (same))

2 The Court Lacks Jurisdiction Because KCWA was not named as a Defendant and Plaintiffs Published a Defective Summons

To the extent that Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to invalidate both parts of the alleged two-

part transfer of the KFE lands authorized by two separate transfer contracts the failure to serve

and name KCW A in the Complaint and published Summons as a defendant is fatal (Complaint

-r-r 145 158307) The Complaint clearly challenges the validity of State Transfer Contract and

KFE lands transfer from DWR to KCWA (Jd) On the other hand it is not entirely clear

whether the Complaint also seeks to invalidate andor reverse the separate Local Transfer

Contract that provided for the transfer ofKFE lands from KCWA to KWBA in a separate

transaction in 1996 (Jd) Assuming without conceding that the Complaint also seeks to

invalidate or reverse such contract or the transfer of KFE lands from KCW A to KWBA then the

COUli lacks jurisdiction as KCW A must be considered indispensible under the reasoning of

PCL supra 83 CalApp4th 89i 2 and shall be specifically named in the in the complaint and

the summons as a defendant (CCP sect 863)

Thus Plaintiffs have filed a defective complaint and published a defective summons bull 23 N and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the res of the second cause of action (ie what the i5 24 Complaint seeks to invalidate) (Eg Katz v Campbell supra 144 CalApp4th at 1032 0 Q 25 u 0 Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist v City oIndio (2002) 101 CalApp4th 12 E 26 c 27 12 peL supra 83 CalApp4th at pages 925-926 states Emphasizing the in rem nature ofthe validation

28 proceeding plaintiffs contend there are no indispensible paIiies beyond the public agency whose action is challenged We agree

14 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTIONTO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 24: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1 14-17 (defectively worded summons does not provide the notice necessary for jurisdiction to

2 attach) Community Redevelopment Agency ofLos Angeles v Superior Court (1967) 248

3 CalApp2d 164 178)

4 The same result follows for the third cause of action which challenges the validity of the

bull 5 same res as the second Plaintiffs cannot side step the procedural mandates of the Validation

8

9

Statutes by challenging the validity of public agency contracts subject thereto in a cause of actio

repackaged and styled as mandatemiddot (Commerce Casino supra at 1414-1416 Barratt

American supra 37 Ca14th at 705 Hollywood Park supra 178 CalAppAth at 946)

Thus the second and third causes of action should be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction

VI CONCLUSION

For the above reasons Real Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain this

Demurrer and grant the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and dismiss the second and

third causes of action of the Complaint with prejudice

Dated September d3 2010

g 22 00 bull 23 co

s N co

24 0 Q 25 0 u I 26 JO 27

28

THE LAW OFFICES OF YOUNG WOOLDRIDGE LLP

___ STEVEN M TORIGIANI Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest Dudley Ridge Water District Kern Water Bank Authority Oak Flat Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Tejon-Castac Water District and Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District

15 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 25: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

1))--Dated SeptemberLfL 2010

bull 5

bull 23 N 24 l o e 25 o u

26 lt B

27

28

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

------J Clifford Schulz Esq HanspeterWalter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERNCOUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By--___---_________---l

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq

Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

___________----1

Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Pruiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY P ARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By_____ ___________I

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq John J Flynn Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 26: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a 0

bI tl -5 0 0 0 bI I l 0

=-S B E bull t-00 ltgt t-M

2 -gt -gt -

ltlUJ Z 0 bull

-gt -gt

t-0-M 7 eJ)[l OJ = 0 OJ

Eolt

00 bull

U 0 M t ltgtOel flt) flt) 0

) UJ c Qj OJeJ)Ecgt t

S =g )

0 bull Qj

lt 0 0i-lt -lt S

i3

0

rJJ

ltgt flt)

ltgt ltgt 00

bull N p B 0

5 u B en OJ OJ

fS

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September j 2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __ 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By Sophie N Froelich Esq Attomeys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

By Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jolm J Flyml Esq Attomeys for Real Pmiies in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 27: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0= u ol tgtI 0 Dated September __ 2010 KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp

0 0 0 GIRARD tgtI = 0= j By ii c Clifford Schulz

r-bull Hanspeter Walter Esq oo

0 Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY M r-I WATER AGENCY 0 0

Dated September -2010 DOWNEY BRAND LLP s-5 z 0

bull 0 0 By

M steven P Saxton Esq

0Q)a Kevin M OBrien Esq 0= Attorneys for Real Party in Interest 0 c CI KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITYil r-ltIi

00 Dated Septembera2010 THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC 0cIS M II 0Ol(l tgt

By il blJE = III Sophie NFroelich Esq Attorneys for 5 Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE l 0 bull MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY 0 -lt -lt fi

0

LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL c 1 CORP= Dated September __2010 NOSSAMAN LLP

CIl 0 0 0 00 bull ByN Stephen N Roberts Esq is Rob Thornton Esq CI 0 John J Flynn Esq u 0 Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER c COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING t

COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP ANDTEJON RANCH COMPANY

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 28: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e 0 cJ ltl bI g a 0 0 01

0 E= bull r-oo c r- 0 0 ]or cJ ojz 0

bull 00 0-r- 0 Q) s 0 r 0 c 0- iil 1-lt

00 bull

U 0oS c 0

ulaquo0 -d Q) iil cJ -

+l 0

oj

til l bull al -= 0

01-lt laquo is oS 0

l ifJ

0 c c 00 bull co N oj

ii Q)

0 c 0 u l -= B

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September __2010

Dated September __ 2010

Dated September rrf) 2010

KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD

By______________________________Clifford Schulz Esq Hanspeter Walter Esq Attorneys for Respondent KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

By_____________________--I

Steven P Saxton Esq Kevin M OBrien Esq Attorneys for Real Party in Interest KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

THE ROLL LAW GROUP PC

By________________ ______Sophie N Froelich Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOuNT FARMING COMPANY LLC AND ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

NOSSAMAN LLP

---i

Stephen N Roberts Esq Rob Thornton Esq Jo1m J FIym1 Esq Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMP ANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP AND TEJON RANCH COMPANY

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 29: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

0= 1 PROOF OF SERVICEu OJ

S a 2 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF KERN 0

3= 0 = I LEANN BANDUCCI declare I am and was at the times of the service hereunder - mentioned over the age ofeighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause My business Ii 4

address is The Westchester Corporate Plaza 1800 30th Street Fourth Floor Bakersfield CA 9330l= e c On Septemberkf 2010 I caused to be served the below listed document(s) entitled bull 6

00 KERNS AND REAL PARTIES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I ltgt 7 SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AND THIRD M CAUSES OF ACTION on the interested parties in this action as listed below 0 80

9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

011 X (BY MAIL) on September if I 2010 at Bakersfield Califomia pursuant to CCP

11 section lOl3(a) By placing I I the original or I x I a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed 12 envelope I am readily familiar with the fim1s practice of collection and processing ofdocuments

for mailing Under that practice it would be deposited with United States Postal Service on that 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Bakersfield California in the ordinary course of

business 14

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) On Septemberf 2010 based on an agreement of the patties to accept service bye-mail or electronic transmission I caused the documents to be sent to

16 the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the trat1smission was unsuccessful

17

18 Executed on Septembertfmiddot 2010 at Bakersfield California

19 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the batmiddot of this cOUli at whose

direction the service was made I declare (or certify verify or state) under penalty ofperjury that 21 the foregoing is true and correct

22

23

24

26

27

28

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 30: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

SERVICE BY US MAIL 1

2 Attorneys for Petitioners California Water Impact Network California Sportfishing Protection 3 Alliance Center for Biological Diversity Carolee Krieger and James Crenshaw

4 Adam Keats Esq Jolm Buse Esq Adam Lazar Esq

6 Center for Biological Diversity bull 351 California St 600

7 San Francisco CA 94104

8 Donald B Mooney Esq 9 Marsha A Burch Esq

Law Office of Donald B Mooney 129 CSt Suite 2 Davis CA 95606

11 12 Michael R Lozeau Esq

Lozeau Drury LLP 13 410 12th St 250

Oakland CA 94607 14

Attorneys for Petitioners South Delta Water Agency and Central Delta Water Agency

16 Dante JohnNomellini Esq N omellini Grilli amp McDaniel

17 235 East Weber Avenue 18 Stockton CA 95202

19 John Herrick Esq Law Office of John Herrick 4255 Pacific A venue Stockton CA 95207 21

22 S Dean Ruiz Esq Harris Perish amp Ruiz

23 3439 Brookside Rd 210 bull Stockton Ca 9521924

Real Parties In Interest

26 Tejon Ranch Company 4436 Lebec Road 27 Lebec CA 93243

28

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 31: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

o s 1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District u 0 co Division of Public Works OJ

-a 2 1050 Monterey Street -0 o San Luis Obispo CA 93408

3

1 = o gt

4 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District PO Box 5906

0 San Bernardino CA 92412-5906 t c bull 6 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor Santa Barbara CA 931017

8

9

11

12

13

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 32: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E 0 SERVICE BY ELECTRONICSERVICEOJ oJ Of 0 middotc 0 0 Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent California Dep31iment of Water Resources 0

Of c 0 Deborah A Wordham= -

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street sect Sacramento CA 95814 c

Deborahwordh31TIdojcagovbull I-0-00

Eric M KatzI-N Deputy Attorney General C C 300 South Spring Street 1702 s Los Angeles CA 90013Om

ltIJ z CoO Erickatz(Q)doj cagov 8 bullC2 0 C Attorneys for Respondent Kern County Water AgencyC

r N Clifford Schulz Esq SBN 39381c C

ltIJ ltlJ c Hanspeter Walter Esq SBN 244847r-ltIJ

c c Q KRONICK MOSKOVITZ TIEDEMANN amp GIRARD ltlJ

OJ 400 Capitol Mall 2ih Floor- sect Sacramento CA 95814

00- cschulzkmtgcom N t 0 hwalterkmtgcom Ofi 015 u Attornevs for Real Parties in Interest -0 OJ

= ltlJ = Steven P Saxton Esq SBN 116943 =i DOWNEY BRAND=6 - 621 Capitol Mall 18th Floor 0 0 Sacramento CA 95814-4731 5 ssaxton0downeybrandcom =0

OJ OJ

Sophie N Froelich Esq SBN213194 iFi Roll Law Group PC 0 11444 Olympic Blvd 5th Floor 0

00 0 Los Angeles CA 90064 bull sfroelichrollcom N

i5 OJ Stephen N Roberts Esq I-0 Q Noss31TIan LLP 0 l- SO California Street 34th Flooru I- San Francisco CA 94111 ltlJ c sro belis(ci)nossaman com OJ

KERN WATER BANK AUTHORITY

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP

WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP TEJON RANCH COMPANY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 33: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

0 e Robert D Thornton Esq WESTSIDE MUTUAL WATER COMPANYOJ ol Nossaman LLP PARAMOUNT FARMING COMPANY LLC OJ

0 18101 Von Karman Avenue 1800 ROLL INTERNATIONAL CORP 0 Irvine CA 92612 TEJON RANCH COMPANY OJ c g 11horntonnossamancom gt-

sect Real Pat1ies In Interest c bull r-- Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 00 0 -lt Jill Duerig N General Manager Zone 7 Water Agency middots 100 N Canyons Parkway Livermore CA 94551 ltJgt

0 OJ Z E-mail jduerigzone7watercom r bull 0 Z Alameda County Water District -

0 Stephen B Peck N Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor 9 0 0

c 0

San Francisco CA 94105 c Telephone 415-995-5022 Q

il Facsimile 415-995-3425 f-lt sect bull E-mail speckhansonbridgettcom

00 N Atelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency0

Q Jason Ackerman 0153 0 Michael Riddell 0

Best Best amp Krieger 3750 University Avenue Suite 400

u - Riverside CA 92502 13 - Telephone 951-826-8428 (Ackerman)

Il = Telephone 951-686-3083 (Riddell) E-mail JasonAckermanbbklawcom =S1

bull 001 0

E-mail Michae1Riddellbbklawcom -5 County of Butte 5 Bruce Alpert County Counsel 0

25 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965-3380 rJl

b Telephone 530-538-7621 0 Facsimile 530-538-6891 0

00- E-mail balpelibuttecountynetbull Roger K Masuda N David L Hobbsp Griffith amp Masuda 0 Q 517 E Olive Avenue 0 u PO Box 510 Turlock CA 95380 c Telephone 209-667-5501

Facsimile 209-667-8176 E-mail dhobbscalwaterlawcom

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 34: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e omiddot bl 0 0 0 0

bl C

0

ii t c

bull r-oo gt r-M

OJ eoZ 9 I-lt bull 0

c- c M

c 0

OJ)g E

g bull 00c- M t ltgtc-

U -0

t3 -lt eo iQ

bull -

001 0

G-5 -0 OJ rn ltgt ltgt -ltgt 00

bull eo N eo

OJ -0 Q 0 u -en en OJ

Castaic Lake Water Agency 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road Santa Clarita CA 91350 E-mail jsalmonCiLmkblawyerscom E-mail ebaltraniCVmkblawyerscom Central Coast Water Authority Lisabeth D Rothmann Beth A Collins-Burgard Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles CA 90067-3007 Telephone 310-500-4616 Facsimile 310-500-4602 E-mail LRothmannbhfscom E-mail BCollinsbhfscom Coachella Valley Water District Steven B Abbott Redwine and Sherrill 1950 Market Street Riverside CA 92501 Telephone 951-684-2520 Facsimile 951-684-9583 E-mail sabbottredwineandsherrillcol11 Crestline - Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Desert Water Agency Jason Ackerman Michael Riddell Best Best amp Krieger LLP See Antelope Valley - East Kern Water Agency above Empire - Westside Water District PO Box 66 Stratford CA 93266 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com County of Kings Colleen Carlson County Counsel 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230 E-mail colleencarlsoncokingscaus Littlerock Creek Irrigation pistrict and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Scott Nave Lemieux amp ONeill 4165 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 350 Westlake Village CA 91362 Telephone 805-495-4770 Facsimile 805-495-2787 E-mail scottlemieux-oneillcom E-mail kathilemieux-oneillcom

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 35: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

5

10

15

20

25

0 E 1 E-mail Christinelemieux-oneiIlcom 0) OJ Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californiamiddotc 2 Adam Kear 0 0 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California OJ 3 == 700 N Alameda Street ] 2th Floor I 0 - PO Box 54]53 Terminal Annex 4 Los Angeles CA 90054-0153 sect Telephone (213)217-6057

Q

Facsimile (213) 217-6890 bull 6 E-mail akearmwdh20com t--00 ltgt Mojave Water Agency t-- 7 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley CA 92307 0 8 E-mailskennedybmblawofticecoms Napa County Flood Control and Water ConservationDistrict 9

z os 804 1 st Street 0 f Napa CA 94559 bullP3 E-mail robmartincountyofnapaorg0 0 cent2 0 e- Oak Flat Water District

t-- II PO Box J596

0 il 0 12 Patterson CA 95363

== 0 E-mail wharrisondelpueliowdorg -= 13 Palmdale Water Districtellsect Q

f-lt Timothy J Gosney14sect bull Jim Ciampa

000 Lagerlof Senecal Gosney amp Kruse LLP

53 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 1000 ltgt

Pasadena CA 91 101 16 Telephone 626-793-9400u -d Facsimile 626-793-5900 17 t E-mail tgosneylagerlofcom 18 E-mail jciampalagerlofcom

=l l Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District bull 19 0 Brian L Morris 0Ol ii Acting County Counsel County of Plumas

lt9 General Manager Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I 520 Main Street Room 413 0

21 - Quincy CA 95971 v Telephone 530-283-624322 0 E-mail brianmorris(Q)countyofplumascom ltgt ltgt 23 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency00 1210 Beaumont Avenue bull os 24 Beaumont CA 92223 N

pos E-mail jsalmonmkblawyerscom - E-mail ebaltranmkblawyerscom 0 Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictQ 26 u 0 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 27 -= afulchervalleywaterorg en - 28 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

123 East Anapamu Street 2nd Floor

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III

Page 36: THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP...THE LAW OFFICES OF Young Wooldridge,LLP 1 A LIMITED LlARILln' PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFFSSION/\L CORPORATIONS 2 VlieSlchesterCorporale Plaza

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Santa Barbara CA 93 101 Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose CA 95118-3686 E-mail afulchervalleywaterorg Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Roadmiddot Building 84 Elmira CA 95625 E-mail jzolezziherumcrabtreecom Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District 100 i Chase Avenue Corcoran CA 93212 E-mail nordlawnordstrom5com Ventura County Watershed Protection District Robert M Sawyer Anthony Van Ruiten Best Best amp Krieger LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 1650 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-325-4000 Facsimile 916-325-4010 E-mail RobertSawyerbbklawcom E-mail AnthonyVanruitenbbklawcom City of Yuba City Andrew M Hitchings Somach Simmons amp Dunn 500 Capitol Mall Suite 1000 Sacramento CA 95814 Telephone 916-446-7979 Facsimile 916-446-8199 E-mail ahitchingssomachlawcom

III

=

--IIl

sect

e= aJ s

-0 Ql I 12 os

=Iol bull 0 0

e 0 ol OJ

C C 0 0

OJ = =0

c bull Ii 0 t M

I middots

01 bull r-Mrogt =0 c Q Ql

bull QO

M on I

0

ii c 0= rJj

0

0 0 QO bull 01 N 01

ll 01 0 Q

u 0

ll III c III