plaintiff/petitioner: defendant/respondent
TRANSCRIPT
APP-002 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO.: FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: John M. Mathews 57723/Robert N. Kwong 121839 FIRMNAME: Arnold LaRochelle Mathews VanConas & Zirbel LLP STREET ADDRESS: 3 0 Q East Esplanade Drive, Suite 2100 cITY: Oxnard STATE: CA ZIP COOE: 9 3 0 3 6 TELEPHONE NO.: ( 8 Q 5 ) 988-9886 FAX NO.: ( 8 05) 988-1937 E-MAILADDRess: [email protected]/[email protected] ATTORNEYFOR(nameJ: Pleasant Valley County Water District SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Ventura
STREET ADDRESS: 8 Q Q s. Victoria Avenue MAILING ADDRESS:
CITYANDZIPCODE: Ventura, CA 93009 BRANCH NAME: Main Branch
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Pleasant Valley County Water District
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency; and Does 1-10, inclusive
CASE NUMBER: lXJ NOTICE OF APPEAL 0 CROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)
56-2015-00464072-CU-WM-OXN
Notice: Please read Information on Appeal Procedures for Unlimited Civil Cases (Ju~icial Council form APP-001) before completing this form. This form must be filed in the superior court, not in the Court of Appeal. A copy of this form must also be served on the other party or parties to this appeal. You may use an applicable Judicial Council form (such as APP-009 or APP-009E) for the proof of service. When this document has been completed and a copy served, the original may then be filed with the court with proof of service.
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that {name): Pleasant Valley County Water District appeals from the following judgment or order in this case, which was entered on (date): January 10, 201 7 CJ Judgment after jury trial W Judgment after court trial CJ Default judgment CJ Judgment after an order granting a summary judgment motion CJ Judgment of dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure,§§ 581d, 583.250, 583.360, or 583.430 D Judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer D An order after judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1 {a)(2) D An order or judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1 (a){3)-{13) lXJ Other (describe and specify code section that authorizes this appeal):
Public Resources Code § 21167.5
2. For cross-appeals only: a. Date notice of appeal was filed in original appeal: b. Date superior court clerk mailed notice of original appeal: c. Court of Appeal case number (if known):
Date: March ()6 , 2017
Robert N Kwong
/Z1J1J . '~"" (TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
Pago 1of1
Form APproved for OpUonal Use JudiclBI Council of Celifomle
APP-002 JRev. Januaty 1, 2017)
NOTICE OF APPEAUCROSS-APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) (Appellate)
Cal. Rules or Court, rule B.100 www.courts.ca.gov
Essential ,rn]Forms·
Pleasant Valley County Water Oistric
Item 10F-2 - Page 1 of 18
1 LEROY SMITH, State Bar No. 107702 County Counsel, County of Ventura
2 JEFFREY E. BARNES, State Bar No. 212154 Assistant County Counsel
3 800 South Victoria Avenue, L/C # 1830 Ventura, California 93009
4 Telephone: (805) 654-5188 Facsimile: (805) 654-2185
5 E-mail: · [email protected]
6 Attomexs for Respondent and Defendant Fox Canyon Ground Water Management Agency
7
8
(EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES (Gov. Code,§ 6103J.)
9
IO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA
11 BY LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, NORWALK COURTHOUSE, DEPT. SE-G
12 PLEASANT VALLEY COUNTY 56-2015-00464072-CU-WM-OXN
13
14
15
WATER DISTRICT,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
vs.
16 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY and DOES
17 1-10, inclusive,
18 Respondents and Defendants.
19
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
20 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21 PLEASE TAKE NOT! CE that on January I 0, 2017, the Judgment attached as
22 Exhibit I hereto was entered in the above-captioned proceeding . .
23
24
25
26 Dated: January 17, 2017
27
28
LEROY SMITH County Counsel, County of Ventura
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENTltem 10F-2 - Page 2of18
.,
1
2
3
4
5
6
·7
8
9
10
11
12
CONFORMED COPY ORIGINAL ~n.eo
Superior Cour1 or Collromla County of Los Angeles
JAN 1O2017 Sherri A. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk
By Michelle Vermilya, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA
BY LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, NORWALK COURTHOUSE, DEPT. SE-G
PLEASANT VALLEY COUNTY 56-2015-00464072-CU-WM-OXN 13 WATER DISTRICT,
[1?9' I IOEQ]JUDGMENT 14 Petitioner and Plaintiff,
IS vs.
16 FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER
17 MANAGE:MENT AGENCY and DOES 1~10, inclusive,
18
19
20
Respondents and Defendants.
On October 28, 2016, in the above-entitled court, the "Petition for Writ of 21
Mandate For Failure to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; Petition 22
for Writ of Mandate t.o Set Aside Quasi·Legislative Action in Excess of Authority; and 23
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief' (hereinafter, "Petition and Complaint") 24
was heard in Department SE-G, the Honorable John A. Torribio presiding. Robert N. 25
Kwong appeared for petitioner and plaintiff Pleasant Valley County Water District, and 26
Jeffrey E. Barnes appeared for respondent and defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater 27
lvianagementAgency. 28
1
JUDGMENT lt~m 10F-2 - Page 3of18
1 After considering the administrative record and pleadings, and hearing oral
2 argument, the court took the matter under submission. On November 8, 2016, the court
3 issued its Statement of Decision, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
4 IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
3.
Dated:
For the reasons set forth in the Statement of Decision, the Petition and
Complaint are DENIED;
Judgment is entered in favor of respondent and defendant Fox Canyon
Groundwater Management Agency; and
Respondent and defendant Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
shall recover its costs in the amount of ______ from petitioner
and plaintiff Pleasant Valley County Water District.
JAN 1 0 2017 JUDGE JOHN A. TORRIBIO
The Honorable John A. Torribio
2
JUDGMENT Item 10F-2 - Page 4of18
I
EXHIBIT A
Item 10F-2 - Page 5of18
NOV -8 2016 . She"/ A. Carter. EJceculfve Offl
By Mlohell , certCtedc SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTlJfll1ye· Deputy
BY LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, NORWALK COURTHOUSE, DEPT. SE-G
PLEASANT VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT,
Petitioner
vs . .
FOX CANYON GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
Respondent
Case No.:
56-2015·00464072·CU-WM-OXN
STATEMENT OF DECISION
Petitioner Pleasant Valley County Water District's petition for writ of mandate having been submitted on 10-28-16 is now ruled on as followed:
Petitioner Pleasant Valley County Water District's Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED.
Petitioner Pleasant Valley County Water District ("Petitioner") seeks a peremptory writ to address Respondent Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency ("Agency'')'s violations of law when it approved the Project, Ordinance No. 8.8.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In.response to the Governor's 1117/14 declaration of a state of emergency due to statewide drought conditions, the Fox Canyon Board of Directors approved a Project, Ordinance No. 8.8, Approach D, which amends the Fox Canyon Ordinance Code in order to provide "clarification for rules for calculation and assessment of surcharges for exceeding an irrigation allowance index of 1.0, and imP,osition of an agency-wide cap on agricultural water application."
Item 10F-2 - Page 6of18
MERITS:
Where a writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any ·final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the deter:mination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury. (CCP I 094.5.)
In any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established IF THE AGENCY HAS NOT PROCEEDED IN A MANNER REQUIRED BYLAW OR IF THE DETERMINATION OR DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. (Pub. Res. Code 21168.5.)
Petitioner contends Agency. violated CEQA by: 1) misapplying categorical exemptions from CEQA review; and 2) ignoring Guideline 15300.2(c)'s "unusual circumstance" exception. Pleasant Valley also argues the Agency exceeded its authority because it lacks authority over surface water.
AGENCY'S AUTHORITY:
Agency was created in 1982 for the purpose of preserving groundwater resources for agricultural and municipal and industrial uses. The Legislature declared that creation of a groundwater management agency is in the public interest and that respondent would act for the common benefit of"water users." (Wat. Code App., Sex. 121-102.) Agency was given wide-ranging authority to engage in groundwater management activities, i.e. "programs, measures, or actions taken to PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND ENHANCE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES within the territory of the agency." (Wat. Code App., Sec. 121-311.) In addition to these expressly enumerated powers, Agency was granted "such other POWERS AS ARE REASONABLY IMPLIED AND NECESSARY AND PROPER to carry out the objectives and purposes of the agency." (Wat. Code App., Sec. 121-102.) This statute gives the board broad powers to carry out its mandate. Petitioner's
· argument that the board is an agency with limited powers is unfounded.
Petitioner contends that Agency does not have statutory authority to use "surface water" in its surcharge calculation methodology. However, Petitioner ignores
2
Item 10F-2 - Page 7of18
"implied powers" to carry out its objectives and purposes. Agency's purpose is to protect and preserve groundwater within its jurisdiction. In order to carry out this objective, conservation of Santa Clara River surface water is necessary to ensure the availability of sufficient groundwater for beneficial use.
The groundwater basins within Agency's jurisdiction include: the Oxnard Fotebay, Oxnard Plain, Pleasant Valley, Santa Rosa, and the West, East and South Las Posas basins. (AR 1032.) These contain two aquifer systems recharged by infiltration of streamflow, primarily from the Santa Clara River. (AR I 033.) The SANT A CLARA RIVER IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE for the Oxnard Forebay, which in tum is an important source of recharge for the Oxnard Plain basin and aquifers under Agency's jurisdiction. (AR 1011, 1032, 1035-1036.) The recharge is needed to counter the harmful effects of seawater intrusion and other issues associated with overuse. Ordinance 8.8 managed the Santa Clara River surface water and groundwater as an integrated resource. (AR 170.) This same rationale did not apply to other sources of surface water consisting of recycled wastewater and desalted water that have not historically been used for groundwater recharge. (AR 33, I 17, 245-246, 263, 276.) Accordingly, if the Santa Clara River surface water is not used, it could otherwise be used to recharge the aquifers.
In Zack v. Marin Emergency Ratio Authority (2014) 118 Cal.Ap.41h 617, 636, the court held that the express power to "make use of water" implies the power to employ such means as are "reasonably necessary to protect the resource." Similarly, here, the Agency's express power to "preserve, protect, and enhance groundwater resources" implies the power to include surface water in its surcharge calculation methodology to protect groundwater resources.
Further, Agency is statutorily authorized to implement conjunctive use objectives (Wat. Code App., Sec. 121-502) and conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater resources is a management method favored by the Legislature. (Wat. Code, Sec. 1011.5; see also State of California Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 118, 2003 Update, at pp. 32, 81, 82, I 00 - groundwater and surfac~ water are an ''integrated resource".) Thus, Agency's encouragement of growers to make efficient use of Santa Clara River surface water through its groundwater extraction surcharge program is a reasonable means of carrying out its statutory goal of bringing .its regulated groundwater basins to a condition of safe yield.
Although _surface water and groundwater are used in the calculation methodology because they are an "integrated resource," Agency did not apply a surcharge to
3
Item 1 OF-2 - Page 8 of 18
surface water; surcharges are only applied to groundwater that exceeds the annual efficiency allocation. (AR 165-169.) Thus, it does not appear that Agency is exceeding its authority in regulating surface water, as suggested by Petitioner. Agency is only using surface water in its calculation methodology, which this court finds is within the scope of Agency's authority to preserve, protect and enhance groundwater resources. (Wat. Code App., Sec. 121-311.)
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS:
In order to show that categorical exemptions apply, Agency must show that substantial evidence exists in the administrative record that Ordinance No. 8.8: is authorized by state law or local ordinance; assures the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource; and assures the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection ofthe environment. (CEQA Guidelines 15307 and 15308.)
When considering a challenge to an agency's exemption determination, the court considers whether the agency proceeded in a manner required by law and whether its determination is supported by substantial evidence. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4lh 1356, 1381.) The interpretation of an exemption presents a question of law subject to the court's independent review. (Id. at 1382, 1387.) However, the substantial evidence test governs judicial review of the agency's factual detennination that a project falls within a categorical exemption. (Id)
In adopting Ordinance 8.8, Agency detennined that the Ordinance was exempt from CEQA under the Class 7 and 8 categorical exemptions based on its finding that f'this Ordinance will help eliminate overdraft from the aquifer systems within the boundaries of the Agency." (AR 96.) On 1115/15, Agency filed a notice of exemption that included a statement of the reasons for this exemption finding. (AR 1.) Ordinance 8.8 took effect on 2/10/15. (AR 97.)
Initially, Petitioner contends ·that Class 7 and 8 exemptions require that the actions contemplated are actually "authorized by state law or local ordinance," ~d that Agency is not so authorized. (Opening Brief, 15:11-25.) However, as discussed above, the court finds that Agency was expressly authorized by state law to preserve grol.llldwater resources. (Wat. Code App., Sec: 1~1 ·311.) ~his express power included the implied power to use surface water in its calculation
4
Item 10F-2 - Page 9of18
methodology for purposes of groundwater surcharge because groundwater and surface water are an integrated resource. (Wat. Code App., Sec. 121-102.)
Alternatively, Petitioner contends that Ordinance 8.8 "create[s] a perverse incentive on those agricultural operators who have access to both groundwater and surface water ... to use as much groundwater as possible in order to avoid the imposition of surcharges." (Opening Brief, 17:20-24.) To exemplify, under the surcharge structure (See Reply, Table at .11 :1-20), after the 50111 acre-foot of · groundwater, it becomes irrelevant whether the operator extracts 100 additional acre-feet of groundwater or 100 acre-feet of surface water because the surcharge assessed by Respondent will be the same. Thus, the use of surface water in Agency's calculations may not preserve groundwater.
However, Petitioner's Table shows that as the groundwater usage increases, surface water usage decreases. In addition to preserving groundwater, Agency also has a conjunctive interest in preserving surface water because any unused portion of Santa Clara River surface water could otherwise be used to recharge the aquifers under Agency's jurisdiction. (AR 1011-12, 1032~33, 1035-1036, 1048.) Thus, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that Agency's decision to use both surface and groundwater in the surcharge structure, accomplishes its conjunctive use objectives to preserve a natural resource. (AR 165-169.)
Further, Ordinance 8.8 qualifies for the "commonsense,, exemption (CEQA Guidelines 15063(a)) because no possibility exists that the provision's adoption may have a significant impact on the environment. Before Ordinance 8.8 was enacted, an operator's use of all sources of water (including surface water diverted from the Santa Clara River) were considered in Agency's groundwater extraction surcharge methodology. After Ordinance 8.8 was enacted, an operator's use of
· surface water diverted from the Santa Clara River was also considered in the groundwater extraction surcharge methodology. Thus, Ordinance 8.8 did not change the regulatory treatment of Santa Clara River surface water under the surcharge rules.
GUIDELINE 15300.2(C)'S "UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE" EXCEPTION:
"By statute, the Legislature has ... directed the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency (Secretary) to establish "a list of classes of projects that have been detennined not to have a significant effect on the environmen~ and that shall be exempt from" CEQA. (§ 21084. subd. (a).) "In response to that mandate," the Secretary "has found" that certain "classes of projects ... do not have a significant
5
Item 10F-2 - Page 10of18
effec_t on the environment" and, in administrative regulations known as guidelines has 1.1sted those classes and "declared [them] to be categoricaIIy exempt from the ' requirement for the preparation of environmental documents ....
Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c) ... provides: "A categorical exemption sh~ll .not ~e used for ~n activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment DUE TO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.".. . The detennination as to whethei· there are unusual circums~ances, Ca~. Co~e Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2, subd. (c), is reviewed under§ 21168.5 s substantial evidence prong. However, an agency's finding as to whether unusual circumstances give rise to a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment,§ 15300.2, subd. (c), is reviewed to ?etennine whether the agency, in applying the fair argument standard, proceeded m the manner required by law.§ 21168.5 ...
[T]o establish the unusual circumstances exception, it is not enough for a challenger merely to provide substantial evidence that the project .MAY have a significant effect on the environment, because that is the inquiry CEQA requires . absent an exemption.(§ 21151.) Such a showing is inadequate to overcome the Secretary's determination that the typical effects of a project within an exempt class are not significant for CEQA purposes. On the other hand, EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HA VE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT DOES TEND TO PROVE THAT SOME CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PROJECT IS UNUSUAL. AN AGENCY PRESENTED WITH SUCH EVIDENCE MUST DETERlvlINE, BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE IT-INCLUDING CONTRARY EVIDENCE REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS-WHETHER THERE IS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT JUSTIFIES REMOVING THE PROJECT FROM THE EXE:MPT CLASS." ...
Accordingly, when there are "unusual circumstances,,, it is appropriate for agencies to apply the fair argument standard in determining whether "there is a reasonable possibility [of] a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (Guidelines, § I 5300.2, subd. (c).) As to this question, the reviewing court's function "is to detennine whether substantial evidence support[s] the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be made." Remember, drought is common to Southern California. Dry years are not unusual.
This bifurcated approach to the questions of unusual circumstances and potentially significant effects comports with our construction of the unusual circumstances
6
Item 10F-2 - Page 11of18
.. •
exception to REQUIRE FINDINGS OF BOTH UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. It would be inappropriate for an agency to apply the fair argument standard to detennine whether unusual circumstances exist. That standard is intended to guide the determination of whether a project has a potentially significant effect, not whether it presents unusual circumstances. While evidence of a significant effect may be offered to prove unusual circumstances, CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT BECOIVIE UNUSUAL :MERELY BECAUSE A FAIR ARGUIVIBNT CAN BE MADE 1HA T THEY IvllGHT HA VE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. EVIDENCE THAT A PROIBCT MA YHA VE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IS NOT ALONE ENOUGH to remove it from a class consisting of similar projects that the Secretary has found "do not have a significant effect on the environment." Therefore, an agency must weigh the evidence of environmental effects along with all the other evidence relevant to the unusual circumstances determination, and make a finding of fact. Judicial review of such determinations is limited to ascertaining whether they are "supported by substantial evidence." (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal. 4th I 086.)
Here, Petitioner claims Agency may not rely on Class 7 and 8 categorical exemptions because ''there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (Guidelines 15300.2(c).) As explained in Berkeley Hillside, an agency must evaluate potential environmental effects under the fair argument standard, but this court's review is limited to ascertaining whether the Agency's decision is supported by s~bstantial evidence.
According to Petitioner, the surcharge structure could lead to groundwater degradation, and therefore constitutes an "unusual circumstance," requiring the preparation of an BIR. (Opening Brief, 22:10-12.) However, the fact that the surcharge structure "may" have a significant effect is not alone enough to remove it from a class consisting of similar projects. Petitioner has the burden of showing evidence in the record that this circumstance "will" have a significant effect, which would "tend to prove that some circumstance of the project is unusual." (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, 60 Cal. 4th 1086.) As presented by Agency, a theoretical, potential iilcrease in groundwater usage necessarily results in a decrease in surface water usage, which in tum, recharges the aquifers, resulting in groundwater preservation. Petitioner failed t~ address th7 benefits associated with the decrease in surface water usage, and therefore, failed to present evidence in the record that such a surcharge structure "wilr' have a significant effect. Accordingly, this court finds that Agency's decision, in applying the fair
1
Item 10F-2 - Page 12of18
.. . .
argument standard, proceeded in the manner required by law and substantial evidence in the record support Agency's decision.
EQUAL PROTECTION:
Petitioner also claims Ordinance 8.8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because the surcharge structure creates different classes of operators, i.e. those who use surface water and those who do not. However, under the rational basis test, the Ordinance must be upheld against equal protection challenge "if there. is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification." (California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 177, 209.) Here, inclusion of Santa Clara River surface water in the extraction surcharge methodology encourages the efficient use of groundwater recharge. Thus, Agency has established a rational basis for the methodology.
Based on the foregoing, Petition is DENIED.
DA TED: November 8, 2016
8
Item 10F-2 - Page 13of18
.. : .
I
2
PROOF OF SERVICE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA
3 . The undersigned declares: I am a citizen of the United States and I am employed m the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a Q~ to the within action; my business address is Ventura County Counsel's Office 800 South
4 Victoria Avenue, Ventura, Cal ifomia 93009-183 O. '
5 On December 23, 2016, I served the within [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT on:
6 John M. Mathews,. Esq. Robert N. Kwong, Esq.
7 Susan McCarthy, Esq. Arnold LaRochelle Mathews
8 V anConas & Zirbel LLP 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 2100
9 Oxnard? California 93036 email: [email protected]
10 email: [email protected] email: [email protected]
11 12 [X]
13
14
15 16 [ ]
17 [X]
18
19
20 [X]
21
22 [ 1 23
24
25
26
27
28
by addressing.an envelope to the above-named person(s) as indicated above, and P-lacing in the envelope a true copy of each of said documents, and by then placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processin~ correspondence for mailing . . On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
by an express service carrier, (a guaranteed next day delivery service), a true copy of the above-stated document m an envelo{>e or package designated by said carrier and addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served.
by electronic mail based on a court order, a court rule or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I electronically served said documents from [email protected] to the above-named person(s) at the electronic address as indicated above at 11 :30 a.m.
(ST A TE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 23, ·2016, at Ventura, California.
(FEDERAL) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at wliose direction the service was made. Executed on , at Ventura, California.
...
J-~
PROOF OF SERVICE Item 10F-2 - Page 14of18
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA
The undersigned declares: I am a citizen of the United States and I am employed 3 in the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over tJ1e age of 18 and not a Rarty to
the within action; my business address is Ventura County Counsel's Office, 800 South 4 Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 93009- I 830. ·
5 On January I 7, 2017, I served the within NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT on:
6 John M. Mathews, Esq.
7 Robert N. Kwong, Esq. Susan McCarthy, Esq.
8 Arnold LaRochelle Mathews VanConas & Zirbel LLP
9 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 2100 Oxnard, California 93036
10 email: [email protected] email: [email protected]
11 email: [email protected]
12 [X]
13
14
15
16 [ ]
17
18 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[X]
[X]
[ J
by addressing an envelope to the above-named person(s) as indicated above, and placing in the envelope a true copy of each of said documents, and by then placing the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing conespondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
by an express service carrier, (a guaranteed next day delivery service), a true copy of the above-stated document m an envelol'e or package designated by said carrier and addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served.
by electronic mail based on a court order, a court rule or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I electronically served said documents from [email protected] to the above-named person(s) at the electronic address as indicated above at 4:30 p.m.
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 17, 2017, at Ventura, California.
(FEDERAL) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at wliose direction the service was made. Executed on , at Ventura, California.
PROOF OF SERVICE Item 10F-2 - Page 15of18
APP-009
PROOF OF SERVICE (Court of Appeal) IX) Mail D Personal Service
Notice: This form may be used to provide proof that a document has been served in a proceeding in the Court of Appeal. Please read Information Sheet for Proof of Service (Court of Appeal) (form APP-009-INFO) before completing this form. Do not use this form for proof of electronic service. See form APP-009E.
Case Name: Pleasant Valley v. Fox Canyon
Court of Appeal Case Number:
Superior Court Case Number: 56-2015-00464072-CU-WM-OXN
1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action.
2. My 0 residence IXI business address is (specify): Arnold LaRochelle Mathews VanConas & Zirbel LLP 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 2100, Oxnard, CA 93036
.
3. I mailed or personally delivered a copy of the following document as indicated below (fill in the name of the document you mailed or delivered and complete either a orb): NOTICE OF APPEAL
a. IXI Mall. I mailed a copy of the document identified above as follows:
(1) I enclosed a copy of the document identified above in an envelope or envelopes and
(a) 0 deposited the sealed envelope(s) with the U.S. Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.
(b) IX] placed the envelope(s) for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in items below, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope(s) with postage fully prepaid.
(2) Date mailed: March 13, 201 7
(3) The envelope was or envelopes were addressed as follows:
(a) Person served: (i) Name: Jeffrey E. Barnes, Assistant County Counsel (ii) Address: Ventura County Counsel's Office
BOO South Victoria Avenue, L/C #1830 Ventura, CA 93009-1600 Attorney for Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency
(b) Person served: (i) Name: (ii) Address:
(c) Person seived: (i) Name: (ii) Address:
Cl Additional persons seived are listed on the attached page (write "APP-009, Item 3a" at the top of the page).
(4) I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The document was mailed from
(city and state): Oxnard, CA
Fonn Ajlpiovod for Opllonal Uso Judicl41 Council or Col~omle
APP-009 (Rev. Januwy 1, 2017) Essential j!]Forms·
PROOF OF SERVICE (Court of Appeal)
Pago 1 or2
www.courts.ca.gov
Item 10F-2 - Page 16 of 18 Pleasant Valley County Water Distri
. . APP-009
Case Name: Court of Appeal Case Number: Pleasant Valley v. Fox Canyon
Superior Court Case Number: 56-2015-00464072-CU-WM-OXN
3. b. D Personal delivery. I personally delivered a copy of the document identified above as follows:
(1) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
(c) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
(2) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
(c) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
(3) Person served:
(a) Name:
(b) Address where delivered:
(c) Date delivered:
(d) Time delivered:
0 Names and addresses of additional persons served and delivery dates and times are listed on the attached page (write "APP-009, Item 3b" at the top of the page).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: March 13, 2017
Esperanza Morales (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM)
APP-009 (Rev. J11nuaiy 1, 2017)
Essential J!)Forms-
~ ~FP~"GTH,,FO""I PROOF OF SERVICE
(Court of Appeal)
Paga 2 of 2
lWZ t 1 ~\f~
03J\13:l3H
Item 10F-2 -Page 18 of 18