1 SHAWN HAGERTY, Bar No. 182435 [email protected] 2 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 655 West Broadway, 15th Floor 3 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: 619.525.1300; Fax: 619.233.6118 4 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant 5 CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA 6 DANIEL COOPER, Bar No. 153576 [email protected] 7 COOPER & LEWAND-MARTIN, INC. 1004 O’Reilly Avenue 8 San Francisco, California 94129 Tel: 415.360.2962 9 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff 10 SANTA BARBARA CHANNELKEEPER 11 ROBERT N. KWONG, Bar No. 121839 DENNIS O. LA ROCHELLE, Bar No. 71599 12 ARNOLD LAROCHELLE MATHEWS VANCONAS & ZIRBEL, LLP 300 Esplanade Dr Ste 2100 13 Oxnard, CA 93036 Tel: 805.988.9886 14 DAVID B. COSGROVE, Bar No. 115564 15 JEFFREY M. ODERMAN, Bar No. 63765 DOUGLAS J. DENNINGTON, Bar No. 173447 16 JEREMY N. JUNGREIS, Bar No. 256417 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 17 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931 18 Tel: 714.641.5100 Fax: 714.546.9035 19 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant 20 CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 82470.00018\32488672.1 - 2 - Jt. Status Conf. State. 1 JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT 2 3 Pursuant to Court order at the Status Conference on November 1, 2019 (“11/1/19 4 Conference”), Defendant and Cross-Complainant City of San Buenaventura (“City”), Plaintiff 5 Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (“Channelkeeper”), Cross-Defendant Casitas Municipal Water 6 District (“Casitas”), and Cross-Defendants who signed below submit this Joint Status Conference 7 Statement (“Statement”). City sent drafts of this Statement to all counsel on November 8, 14, and 8 18, 2019. In addition, counsel exchanged e-mails regarding the Statement. 9 10 1. THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 11 12 A. PARTIES AND SERVICE 13 14 As counsel for City informed the Court at the 11/1/19 Conference, City proposes to file a 15 Third Amended Cross-Complaint (“3rd Am. Cross-Complaint”). The 3rd Am. Cross-Complaint 16 will add parties who may have riparian rights to the Ventura River and its tributaries, and will 17 provide notice of the adjudication to persons who own property overlying one of the four 18 groundwater basins in the Ventura River Watershed. 19 The 3rd Am. Cross-Complaint individually names as parties each of the property owners 20 that own land adjacent to the Ventura River and its tributaries in the caption and in the body of 21 the pleading. The owners of approximately 500 parcels are named as parties because they own 22 land outside of one of the four groundwater basins, but adjacent to the Ventura River and its 23 tributaries (“Riparian Landowners”). The owners of an additional approximately 1,250 parcels 24 are named as parties because they own land overlying one of the four groundwater basins and 25 adjacent to the Ventura River and its tributaries (“Riparian and Overlying Landowners”). City 26 will personally serve the Riparian Landowners and Riparian and Overlying Landowners with the 27 3rd Am. Cross-Complaint and standard form Summons except it will provide 60 days to respond 28 to the 3rd Am. Cross-Complaint. 82470.00018\32488672.1 - 3 - Jt. Status Conf. State. 1 City proposes to allow the Riparian Landowners and Riparian and Overlying Landowners 2 60 days to respond to be consistent with the 60 days provided by the Cross-Defendants named in 3 the Second Amended Cross-Complaint pursuant to the Order Granting Respondent and Cross- 4 Complainant City of San Buenaventura’s Application for Extension of Time, issued by the San 5 Francisco Superior Court and filed November 15, 2018, and to allow these new Cross-Defendants 6 time to attend the public meetings described below that will answer questions about this lawsuit 7 before they must respond to the pleading. 8 The property owners only overlying one of the four basins (“Overlying Landowners”) are 9 not named individually, but instead, are referenced generically. 3rd Am. Cross-Complaint, p. 29, 10 caption; p. 62, ¶ 95. As explained at the Status Conference, the City believes the Overlying 11 Landowners are not automatically parties to the case under the Streamlined Groundwater 12 Adjudication Statutes. Instead, under California Civil Procedure Code section 836(a)(1)(A) 13 (emphasis added), the notice to property owners states in part: “you may become a party to this 14 lawsuit by filing an answer to the lawsuit on or before the deadline specified in this notice.” In 15 other words, an Overlying Landowner only becomes a cross-defendant if he or she answers the 3d 16 Am. Cross-Complaint. City will serve the Notice and Form Answer on the Overlying 17 Landowners pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code section 836. 18 19 B. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 20 21 Pursuant to the Court’s instruction, City revised the prayer for relief to specifically 22 identify the relief it seeks against the Riparian Landowners, Riparian and Overlying Landowners, 23 and Overlying Landowners who do not appear in the lawsuit. 3rd Am. Cross-Complaint, p. 74, 24 ¶¶ 4 - 5. A copy of the proposed 3rd Am. Cross-Complaint and the [Proposed] Order Granting 25 Leave to File the Third Amended Cross-Complaint are attached as Exs. A and B, respectively. 26 27 28 82470.00018\32488672.1 - 4 - Jt. Status Conf. State. 1 2. NOTICE TO COURT 2 3 The Senior Court administrator provided counsel for City with an Excel spreadsheet that 4 lists information for: (1) the Riparian Landowners and Riparian and Overlying Landowners; and 5 (2) the Overlying landowners. Copies of page 1 of the: (1) the Riparian Landowners and Riparian 6 and Overlying Landowners spreadsheet, and (2) the Overlying Landowners spreadsheet are 7 attached as Exs. C and D, respectively. 8 9 3. MOTION FOR APPROVAL 10 11 At the 11/1/19 Conference, the Court provided direction regarding City’s Motion for 12 Approval of the Notice of Commencement of Groundwater Basin and Watershed Adjudication 13 and Form Answer (“Motion for Approval”). The revised Notice of Commencement of 14 Groundwater Basin and Watershed Adjudication (“Notice of Adjudication”): (1) more 15 specifically advises the Overlying Landowners of the potentially adverse consequences if they do 16 not appear in the lawsuit; (2) initial capitalizes the term “Form Answer”; (3) first describes 17 electronic service and then describes filing Form Answers and other pleadings; (4) explains that 18 the Courthouse where pleadings are filed is different than the Courthouse where the case will be 19 heard; and (5) provides links to the Judicial Council form and File & ServeXpress form for 20 indigent parties to seek a fee waiver. 21 The Notice also changes the dates of the meetings and adds a third meeting. The meetings 22 described in item (6) above will be open to all potential parties and their counsel. The meetings 23 will be conducted by City, and shall take place on: 24 ________, February ___, 2019, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. 25 Matilija Junior High School, Auditorium 26 703 El Paseo Road Ojai, CA 93023 27 28 82470.00018\32488672.1 - 5 - Jt. Status Conf. State. 1 Wednesday, February 12, 2019, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Bell Arts Factory, Community Room 2 432 N. Ventura Ave 3 Ventura, CA 93001 4 Thursday, February 13, 2019, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Oak View Community Center, Kunkle Room 5 18 Valley Road Oak View, CA 93022 6 7 City expects the Ojai meeting to take place of February 4 or 6 and hopes to confirm this at 8 the Status Conference. Also pursuant to the 11/1/19 Conference, the Form Answer is revised to 9 have Overlying Landowners: (1) state his or her name and address on caption page; and (2) state 10 his or her parcel number in the body of the form. 11 The [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Approve excuses City from including the 3rd 12 Am. Cross-Complaint when it mail-serves the Notice and Form Answer. As the Court noted at 13 the 11/1/19 Conference, California Civil Procedure Code Section 836(a)(1)(A)(iii) anticipates the 14 underlying pleading is not served with the Notice because the Notice must state contact 15 information for plaintiff’s attorney “from whom the complaint may be obtained. .” However, 16 Section 836(d)(1)(B) contradicts the Notice because it requires plaintiff to serve “the notice, 17 complaint, and form answer to all holders of fee title. .” 18 As with other changes it made to the Notice, City requests the Court exercise its authority 19 under Section 836(i) to change this procedure: “The court may authorize any other procedures it 20 finds appropriate and necessary to provide notice. .” As the Court noted, the 3rd Am. Cross- 21 Complaint is a very technical document that is unlikely to assist the property owner. On the other 22 hand, it may confuse the owner since the Notice explains where he or she can obtain the pleading, 23 but the service package includes the pleading. 24 Copies of the revised English Notice of Adjudication, revised Spanish Notice of 25 Adjudication, revised Form Answer and revised Order Granting City’s Motion for Approval are 26 attached as Exhibits E, F, G and H, respectively. 27 28 82470.00018\32488672.1 - 6 - Jt. Status Conf. State. 1 4. NEUTRAL WEBSITE 2 3 City will establish and maintain during the pendency of litigation a neutral website 4 containing pleadings, reports, notices, party information contemplated by the Order for Stay, 5 signed August 23, 2019, and discovery if the stay is lifted.