TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL APP-004 COURT OF APPEAL, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER (if known): H042712 ATTORNEY OR PARTY VVITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO: , NAME: RICHARD G. ZIMMER, ESQ. (SBN#107263) FOR COURT USE ONLY FIRM NAME: CLIFFORD & BROWN STREET ADDRESS: 1430 TRUXTUN AVENUE CITY: BAKERSFIELD STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 93301 TELEPHONE NO.: (661) 322-6023 FAX NO. (if available): (661) 322-3508 E-MAIL ADDRESS (if available): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): LANDOWNER GROUP PARTIES (LOG) APPELLANT: LANDOWNER GROUP PARTIES (LOG) RESPONDENT: CITY OF SANTA MARIA, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 N. FIRST STREET MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE: SAN JOSE, CA 95113 BRANCH NAME: JUDGES (all who HON. JOSEPH HUBER participated in case): SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER: (LEAD CASE) 1-97-CV-770214 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT NOTE TO APPELLANT: You must file this form with the clerk of the Court of Appeal within 15 days after the clerk mails you the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal required under rule 8.100(e)(1). You must attach to this form (1) a copy of the judgment or order being appealed that shows the date it was entered (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104 for definition of "entered"); and (2) proof of service of this form on all parties to the appeal. (CAUTION: An appeal in a limited civil case (Code Civ. Proc., § 85) may be taken ONLY to the appellate division of the superior court (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.2) or to the superior court (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.710 [small claims cases]). PART I — APPEAL INFORMATION A. APPEALABILITY 1. Appeal is from: Judgment after jury trial Judgment after court trial Default judgment Judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion Judgment of dismissal under Code Civ. Proc., § 581d, 583,250, 583.360, or 583.430 Judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer An order after judgment under Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1(a)(2) An order or judgment under Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1(a)(3)—(13) Other (describe and specify code section that authorizes this appeal): 2. Does the judgment appealed from dispose of all causes of action, including all cross-actions between the parties? x Yes I No (If no, please explain why the judgment is appealable?' B. TIMELINESS OF APPEAL (Provide all applicable dates.) 1 Date of entry of judgment or order appealed from: Jun 17, 2015 2, Date that notice of entry of judgment or a copy of the judgment was served by the clerk or by a party under California Rules of Court, rule 8.104: Jun 17, 2015 • 3. Was a motion for new trial, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for reconsideration, or to vacate the judgment made and denied? I Yes I x No (If yes, please specify the type of motion): Date notice of intention to move for new trial (if any) filed: Date motion filed: Date motion denied: Date denial served: 4. Date notice of x I appeal or l J cross-appeal filed: Auq 12, 2015 C. BANKRUPTCY OR OTHER STAY Is there a related bankruptcy case or a court-ordered stay that affects this appeal? I I Yes No (If yes, please attach a copy of the bankruptcy petition [without attachments] a: ' any stay order.) Page 1 of 3 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT www.courts.ca.gov APP-004 [Rev. July 1, 2014] (Appellate)
APP-004 APPELLATE CASE TITLE: APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: LANDOWNER GROUP PARTIES (LOG) V. CITY OF SANTA MARIA, ET AL. H042712
D. APPELLATE CASE HISTORY (Provide additional information, if necessary, on attachment I.D.) Is there now, or has there previously been, any appeal, writ, or other proceeding related to this case pending in any California appellate court? Yes x No (If yes, insert name of appellate court):SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Appellate court case no.: H032750; H033544; H03436 Title of case: CITY OF SANTA MARIA V. RICHARD ADAMS, ET AL. 1-10350 3 Name of trial court: SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1-clil Mh1&I no.: 1-97-CV-770214 E. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Is service of documents in this matter, including a notice of appeal, petition, or brief, required on the Attorney General or other nonparty public officer or agency under California Rules of Court, rule 8.29 or a statute? Yes I x No (If yes, please indicate the rule or statute that applies) Rule 8.29 (e.g., constitutional challenge; state or county party) Code Civ. Proc., § 1355 (Escheat) Bus. & Prof. Code, §16750.2 (Antitrust) Gov. Code, § 946.6(d) (Actions against public entities) Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17209 (Unfair Competition Act) Gov. Code, § 4461 (Disabled access to public buildings) Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17536.5 (False advertising) Gov. Code, § 12656(a) (False Claims Act) Civ. Code, § 51.1 (Unruh, Ralph, or Bane Civil Rights Health & Saf. Code, § 19954.5 (Accessible seating and Acts; antiboycott cause of action; sexual harassment in accommodations) business or professional relations; civil rights action by Health & Saf. Code, § 19959.5 (Disabled access to district attorney) privately funded public accommodations) Civ. Code, § 55.2 (Disabled access to public Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.7 (CEQA) conveyances, accommodations, and housing) Other (specify statute):
NOTE: The rule and statutory provisions listed above require service of a copy of a party's notice of appeal, petition, or brief on the Attorney General or other public officer or agency. Other statutes requiring service on the Attorney General or other public officers or agencies may also apply.
PART II — NATURE OF ACTION
A. Nature of action (check all that apply): 1. Conservatorship 2. Contract 3. Eminent domain 4. Equitable action a. Declaratory relief b. Other (describe): 5. Family law 6. Guardianship 7. Probate 8. Real property rights a. Title of real property b. Other (describe): Overlying Groundwater Rights 9. Tort a. Medical malpractice b. Product liability c. Other personal injury d. Personal property e. Other tort (describe):
10. Trust proceedings 11. Writ proceedings in superior court a. Mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) b. Administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) c. Prohibition (Code Civ. Proc., § 1102) d. Other (describe): 12. x Other action (describe): QUIET TITLE
B. This appeal is entitled to calendar preference/priority on appeal (cite authority):
APP-004 [Rev. July 1, 2014] CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT Page 2 of 3 (Appellate)
APP-004 APPELLATE CASE TITLE: APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: LANDOWNER GROUP PARTIES (LOG) V. CITY OF SANTA MARIA, ET AL. H042712
PART III — PARTY AND ATTORNEY INFORMATION In the spaces below or on a separate page or pages, list all the parties and all their attorneys of record who will participate in the appeal. For each party, provide all of the information requested on the left side of the page. On the right side of the page, if a party is self-represented please check the appropriate box and provide the party's mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and e- mail address. If a party is represented by an attorney, on the right side of the page, check the appropriate box and provide all of the requested information about that party's attorney. Responses to Part III are attached instead of below
Name of Party: Represented by attorney Self-represented Name of attorney: State Bar no: Appellate court designation: Firm name: Appellant I I Respondent Mailing address: Trial court designation: I Plaintiff I I Defendant Telephone no.: Fax no: Other (specify): E-Mail address:
Name of Party: Represented by attorney Self-represented Name of attorney: State Bar no: Appellate court designation: Firm name: Appellant Respondent Mailing address: Trial court designation: Plaintiff Defendant Telephone no.: Fax no: Other (specify): E-Mail address:
Name of Party: Represented by attorney Self-represented Name of attorney: State Bar no: Appellate court designation: Firm name: Appellant Respondent Mailing address: Trial court designation: Plaintiff I Defendant Telephone no.: Fax no: Other (specify): E-Mail address:
Name of Party: I I Represented by attorney Self-represented Name of attorney: State Bar no: Appellate court designation: Firm name: Appellant Respondent Mailing address: Trial court designation: Plaintiff Defendant Telephone no.: Fax no: Other (specify): E-Mail address:
X Additional pages attached Date: SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
4' s /11 This statement is prepared and submitted by: / , ATURE IF• ATTORNEY OR SELF-REPRE ENTED PARTY) RICHA G. ZIMMER, ESQ .
APP-004 [Rev. July 1, 2014] CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT Page 3 of 3 (Appellate)
I Print this form I I Save this form I Clear this form PART III — PARTY AND ATTORNEY INFORMATION
NAME OF PARTY ATTORNEY Cross-Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Appellants, E. STEWART JOHNSTON (State Bar No. 158651) LANDOWNER GROUP PARTIES (LOG) Box 864 [DETAILED LIST OF LANDOWNER GROUP Los Olivos, CA 93441 PARIES IN PERSONAM AND IN REM IS Telephone: (805) 680-9777 ATTACHED] AND
RICHARD G. ZIMMER (State Bar No. 107263) T. MARK SMITH (State Bar No. 162370) CLIFFORD & BROWN 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 900 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Telephone: (661) 322-6023; Facsimile: (661) 322-3508
Cross-Defendants, Cross-Complainants and RUSSELL MATSUMOTO (State Bar No. 084949) Respondents, ADAM AGRICULTURAL LIMITED FRAME & MATSUMOTO PARTNERSHIP; MILI AND BARBARA P.O. Box 895 ACQUISTAPACE, AS TRUSTEES OF THE Coalinga, CA 93210 ACQUISTAPACE 2003 FAMILY TRUST, DATED Telephone: (559) 935-1552; Facsimile (559) 935-1555 DECEMBER 31, 2003; GEORGE J. ADAM; JOHN F. AND DENA ACQUISTAPACE ADAM, AS TRUSTEES OF THE ADAM FAMILY TRUST; MARK S. ADAM; CHRISTINE M. CRUDEN; B. PEZZONI ESTATE COMPANY; RICHARD L. AND JANET A. CLARK, AS TRUSTEES OF THE RICK AND JANET CLARK FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1986; EDWARD S. WINEMAN; CAROL BROOKS; FRED W. AND NANCY W. HANSON, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE HANSON REVOCABLE TRUST; AND HELEN J. FREEMAN (THE WINEMAN PARTIES)
Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Cross-Defendant and ROBERT J. SAPERSTEIN (State Bar No. 166051) Respondent, GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY AMY M. STEINFELD (State Bar No. 240175 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & SCHRECK, LLP 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-7000; Facsimile. (805) 965-4333
Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, CITY ERIC L. GARNER (State Bar No. 130665) OF SANTA MARIA JEFFREY V. DUNN (State Bar No. 131926) JILL N. WILLIS (State Bar No. 200121) BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 263-2600; Facsimile. (949) 260-0972
Defendant , Cross-Defendant and Respondent, JAMES L. MARKMAN (State Bar No. 43536) NIPOMO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON 355 South Grand Ave., 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Telephone: (213) 626-8484; Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 PART III — PARTY AND ATTORNEY INFORMATION
NAME OF PARTY ATTORNEY Defendants, Cross-Defendants and Respondents, CITY HENRY S. WEINSTOCK (State Bar No. 89765) OF ARROYO GRANDE, and OCEANO NOSSAMAN, LLP COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-7800; Facsimile. (213) 612-7801
Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant IN PRO PER CHARLES BAKER RURAL WATER COMPANY P.O. Box 745 Grover Beach, CA 93483 Telephone: (805) 481-8432; Facsimile: (805) 457-8882
Cross-Defendants and Respondents CITY OF CHRISTOPHER L. CAMPBELL (State Bar No. 116329 GUADALUPE, CITY OF GROVER BEACH and BAKER, MANOCK & JENSEN, PC CITY OF PISMO BEACH 5260 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 421 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 432-5400 Facsimile- (559) 432-5620
Cross-Defendant and Respondents COUNTY OF SAN JANET K. GOLDSMITH (State Bar No. 065959) LUIS OBISPO and Cross-Defendant and Respondent KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL TIEDEMANN & GIRARD, AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT A Professional Corporation 400 Capital Mall„ 27th FLOOR Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 321-4500, Facsimile: (916) 321-4555
Defendants and Cross-Defendants and Respondents JOHANNA HARTLEY COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, SANTA OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL BARBARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND County of Santa Barbara WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT and/or the 105 E. Anapamu Street, Suite 201 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 568-2950; Facsimile: (805) 568-2982 E-FILED Jun 17, 2015 2:05 P David H. Yamasaki Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Sa to Clara Case #1-97-CV-770214 Filing # -73762 By R. Walker, Deputy
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER SANTA MARIA GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, LITIGATION (Assigned to Judge Huber For All Plaintiff, Purposes) v. LEAD CASE NO. 1-97-CV-770214 CITY OF SANTA MARIA, et al., (CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES) Defendants. [Consolidated With Case Numbers: CV784900; CV785509; CV785522; CV787150; CV784921; CV785511; CV785936; CV787151; CV784926; CV785515; CV786971; CV787152; CV790597; CV790599; CV790803; CV790741] San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case Nos. 990738 and 990739
ORDER ON LOG MOTION TO CLARIFY AMENDED JUDGMENT
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS AND ACTIONS CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES
1 E-FILED: Jun 17, 2015 2:05 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-97-CV-770214 Filing #G-73762
The above entitled matter came on regularly for hearing on March 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 21, the Honorable Joseph H. Huber presiding. The appearances are as stated in the record. The Court, having read and considered the supporting and opposing papers, and having heard and considered the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, makes the following order: The log party's motion to clarify the amended judgment is DENIED.
DISCUSSION Plaintiff argues that this Court's Amended Judgment filed on April 17th 2014 does not sufficiently protect them from post-judgment prescription by the Defendant Public Water Suppliers. Relying on City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal 3d 199, they request this Court further protect their overlying groundwater rights from post judgment prescription. This contention is not supported by case law or public policy.
In City of Los Angeles, Plaintiff Los Angeles wanted to quiet title and obtain a declaration of its prior rights to the water underlying the Upper Los Angeles River Area. The Court held that the City of Los Angeles had a priority right to the surface water, the groundwater runoff, and the return water from the San Fernando basin. Here, in this motion, Plaintiff LOG argues that in following City of Los Angeles, this Court also "should declare such prospective uses paramount to any right of the appropriator. By such declaratory judgment, the rights of the riparian will be fully protected against the appropriative use ripening into a right by prescription." (Ibid) As explained further below, the Court's actual finding is very limited and does not apply here. However, even if were to apply, there is no mandatory language in the Court's decision. Though the LOG parties argue that this Court must act, the language is clearly discretionary. Furthermore, City of Los Angeles' holdings are largely based upon pueblo rights. Pueblo rights are paramount in the hierarchy of water rights including that of prescriptive water right owners. (Ibid at 252). Pueblo rights are uniquely grounded in Spanish and Mexican history, and are only applicable to pueblos that existed before 1849 (Ibid at 252). As a result, pueblos are
largely in Southern California. Santa Maria is not considered..a part of the original California
2 E-FILED: Jun 17, 2015 2:05 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-97-CV-770214 Filing #G-73762
pueblos, and therefore the case law largely does not apply. Here, the rights at issue in this case are not pueblo rights, but are in fact overlying rights. Overlying rights have and always remain subject to adverse prescriptive claims. (Peabody v. City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal 2d 351, 374) Moreover, City of Los Angeles' heavily cited holding is actually very narrow and is inapplicable to Plaintiff's case. The Court made clear that "for the purpose of protection against prescription, the declaratory judgment was as effective as if it had explicitly restrained defendants from asserting any right to the water except in subordination to plaintiff's paramount right" (Ibid at 269). Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, this finding does not illuminate a gaping vulnerability in the amended judgment. Again, the holding is based upon the City's prior and paramount right to the water. The Court makes clear that the declaratory judgment essentially was an explicit restraint on defendants because of the paramount nature of pueblo rights. The Court is justifying the procedure that the City of Los Angeles used to get relief. Because Los Angeles used declaratory relief instead of injunctive, the Court was simply finding that the declaratory judgment was for all intents and purposes "explicitly restraining" the other party from eroding their rights. Additionally, the relief that Plaintiff requested in their initial action was neither injunctive or declaratory. The only relief they requested was of a quiet title action. A quiet title decree may no take the form of an injunction. (Reiner v. Schroeder (1905) 146 Cal. 411). As a result, Plaintiff cannot go back in time and now argue that they intended (or now want) injunctive or declaratory relief. Again, the law of City of Los Angeles is further inapplicable to Plaintiff's case. Though Plaintiffs argue that it would be "judicially inefficient" to require that they initiate additional litigation to protect their groundwater rights, the public policy has always been in favor of this "pro-activity." As stated by Santa Maria v. Adam 211 Cal App 4th 266, "landowners may limit prescriptive rights by showing that although they had not sought an injunction during the prescriptive period, they exercised self help." By exercising self help, they must continually pump; this is their main mechanism to diligently protect their rights. Therefore, the public and judicial policy has always been about encouraging individuals to enforce their rights instead of "sitting" on their rights and then raising issue when it has become prejudicial to defendants. Lastly, the language of the Amended Judgment provides for "adjustments for the amounts of the native Basin groundwater lost to the prior prescriptive rights," by leaving open the possibility of adverse prescriptive rights occurring in the future. In light of the "looming water supply
3 E-FILED: Jun 17, 2015 2:05 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-97-CV-770214 Filing #G-73762
disaster" that Plaintiffs alludes to, practically, it should require constant judicial monitoring. This is the only way to ensure the reasonable and beneficial use of the water supply in the state. (Peabody v. City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal 2d 351, 382)
'..---- Dated: CCU - i ) '' / S
h H. Huber ge of the Superior Court
4 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ELECTRONIC FILING - WWW.SCEFILING.ORG c/o Glotrans E-FILE 2915 McClure Street Oakland, CA94609 Jun 17, 2015 2:05 PM TEL: (510) 208-4775 David H. Yamasaki FAX: (510) 465-7348 Chief Executive Officer/Clerk EMAIL: [email protected] Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clar Case #1-97-CV-770214 Filing #G-73762 By R. Walker, Deputy
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater In Re Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Litigation Associated cases: 1-00-CV-786971 Litigation [Consolidated Action] 1-00-CV-787150 1-00-CV-787151 1-00-CV-787152 1-05-CV-036410 1-99-CV-784900 1-99-CV-784921 Lead Case No.1-97-CV-770214 1-99-CV-784926 1-99-CV-785509 1-99-CV-785511 1-99-CV-785515 1-99-CV-785522 1-99-CV-785936 Hon. Joseph H. Huber
Plaintiff, VS.
Defendant. PROOF OF SERVICE AND RELATED ACTIONS Electronic Proof of Service
I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2915 McClure Street, Oakland, CA 94609. The documents described on page 2 of this Electronic Proof of Service were submitted via the worldwide web on Wed. June 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM PDT and served by electronic mail notification. I have reviewed the Court's Order Concerning Electronic Filing and Service of Pleading Documents and am readily familiar with the contents of said Order. Under the terms of said Order, I certify the above-described document's electronic service in the following manner: The document was electronically filed on the Court's website, http://www.scefiling.org, on Wed. June 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM PDT Upon approval of the document by the Court, an electronic mail message was transmitted to all parties on the electronic service list maintained for this case. The message identified the document and provided instructions for accessing the document on the worldwide web. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 17, 2015 at Oakland, California. Dated: June 17, 2015 For WWW.SCEFILING.ORG Andy Jamieson E-FILED: Jun 17, 2015 2:05 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-97-CV-770214 Filing #G-73762
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM - WWW.SCEFILING.ORG
Electronic Proof of Service Page 2
Document(s) submitted by Rowena Walker of Santa Clara County Superior Court on Wed. June 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM PDT
1. Order: Order on LOG Motion to Clarify Amended Judgment 1 PROOF OF SERVICE (C.C.P. §1013a, 2015.5) Landowner Group Parties v. City of Santa Maria, et al. 2 Appellate Case No. H042712 Lead Case No. 1-97-CV770214 [Consolidated With Case Numbers: CV784900, CV784921, CV784926, CV785509, 3 CV785511, CV785515, CV785522, CV785936, CV786971, CV787150, CV787151, CV787152, CV790597, CV790599, CV790803, CV 790741, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court CV790597, CV790599, CV790803] 4 I am employed in the County of Kern, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a 5 party to the within action; my business address is 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. 6 On September 10, 2015, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled: 7 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET FOR COURT OF APPEAL, SIXTH 8 APPELLATE DIVISION 9 on the following:
10 TED R. FRAME (State Bar No. 023736) RUSSELL MATSUMOTO (State Bar No. 084949) 11 FRAME & MATSUMOTO P.O. Box 895 12 Coalinga, CA 93210 13 ROBERT J. SAPERSTEIN (State Bar No. 166051) 14 AMY M. STEINFELD (State Bar No. 240175 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER & SCHRECK, LLP 15 1020 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 16
17 ERIC L. GARNER (State Bar No. 130665) JEFFREY V. DUNN (State Bar No. 131926) 18 JILL N. WILLIS (State Bar No. 200121) BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 19 18101 Von Karman Avenue 20 Irvine, CA 92612
21 JAMES L. MARKMAN (State Bar No. 43536) STEVEN R. ORR (State Bar No. 136615) 22 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON 355 South Grand Ave., 40th Floor 23 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 24 HENRY S. WEINSTOCK (State Bar No. 89765) 25 NOSSAMAN, LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor 26 Los Angeles, CA 90017
1 1 CHARLES BAKER P. O. Box 745 2 Grover Beach, CA 93483 3 CHRISTOPHER L. CAMPBELL (State Bar No. 116329 4 BAKER, MANOCK & JENSEN, PC 5260 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 421 5 Fresno, CA 93704 6 JANET K. GOLDSMITH (State Bar No. 065959) 7 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARD, 8 A Professional Corporation 400 Capital Mall„ 27th FLOOR 9 Sacramento, CA 95814 10 JOHANNA HARTLEY 11 OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 12 105 E. Anapamu Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 13
14 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 191 North First Street 15 San Jose, CA 95113
16 X BY SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT E-FILING IN COMPLEX 17 LITIGATION PURSUANT TO CLARIFICATION ORDER DATED OCTOBER 18 27, 2005.
19 Executed on September 10, 2015, at Bakersfield, California.
20 X (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 21 California that the above is true and correct.
22 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was ade.
23 l 24
25 SHEILA 55100-2 26
2