e-received j. banks (sbn 119525) 2/2/2017 w. david … · 1-05-cv-049053 (jccp 4408) antelope...
TRANSCRIPT
1 JAMES J. BANKS (SBN 119525) W. DAVID CORRICK (SBN 171827)
2 BANKS & WATSON 901 F Street, Suite 200
3 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 325-1000
4 Fax: (916) 325-1004 Email: [email protected]
5 WILLIAM J. BRUNICK (SBN 46289)
6 LELAND P. MCELHANEY (SBN 39257) BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY
7 1839 Commercenter West San Bernardino, CA 92408
8 Phone: 909) 889-8301 Fax: (909) 388-1889
9 Email: [email protected]
Exempt from Filing Fee Pursuant to Gov't. Code § 6103
10 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, ANTELOPE VALLEY EAST - KERN WATER AGENCY
11
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
14 Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 1550(b))
15 ANTELOPE VALLEY
16 GROUNDWATER CASES
17 Including Consolidated Actions:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 v. Diamond Farming Co. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC 325 201
Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 v. Diamond Farming Co. Superior Court of California, County of Kern, Case No. S-1500-CV -254-348
Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. v. City of Lancaster Diamond Farming Co. v. City of Lancaster Diamond Farming Co. v. Palmdale Water Dist. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, consolidated actions, Case Nos. RIC 353 840, RIC 344436, RIC 344 668
AND RELATED ACTIONS.
{00081027.DOCX; I}
Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4408
Santa Clara Case No. 1-05-CV -049053 Assigned to the Honorable Jack Komar Department 17C
ANTELOPE VALLEY EAST - KERN WATER AGENCY'S NOTICE OF APPEAL [CCP § 904.1(a)(6)]
ANTELOPE VALLEY EAST - KERN WATER AGENCY'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL [CRC Rule 8.124; CRC Rule 8.130]
Judge: Hon. Jack Komar Complaint Filed: 9/22/2005 Trial Date:
ANTELOPE V ALLEY EAST - KERN WATER AGENCY'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL
E-RECEIVED
2/2/2017
1 NOTICE OF APPEAL
2 Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainants and Appellant Antelope Valley East - Kern Water Agency
3 ("AVEK") hereby appeals from the superior court's December 9, 2016 order denying AVEK's Motion
4 to Disqualify Best Best & Krieger as Legal Counsel in Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases. The
5 superior court's order is appealable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 (a)(6)
6 and as a final order collateral to the main action.
7 DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL
8 1. Record of Documents Filed in the Superior Court
9 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that AVEK elects to proceed under the provisions California
10 Rule of Court, rule 8.124, so that a joint appendix or individual appendices will be submitted in lieu of a
11 clerk's transcript.
12 2. Record of Oral Proceedings in the Superior Court
13 FURTHER, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to the provisions California Rule of
14 Court, rule 8.130, AVEK designates for inclusion in the Reporter's Transcript on Appeal the following:
15 (a) All arguments, discussions, conferences, and colloquies between counsel and between
16 counsel and the superior court regarding AVEK's Motion to Disqualify Best Best & Krieger as Legal
1 7 Counsel in Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases, which was heard before this Court on December 7,
18 2016.
19 Pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 8 .130(b )(3)(C), a certified transcript of the designated
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceedings is attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: February 1,2017 BANKS & WATSON
By:
{00081027.DOCX; I} 1 ANTELOPE V ALLEY EAST - KERN WATER AGENCY'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND
NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL
1 2 3 4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 'I
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 27
28
'wi
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 222 HON. JACK KOMAR, JUDGE
COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL TITLE (RULE 550(B))
)
)
)
ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES
INCLUDED ACTIONS:
)
)
)
JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4408
)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS )
DISTRICT NO. 40 V. DIAMOND FARMING) SANTA CLARA CASE NO. 1-05-CV-049053
CO., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CASE NO. BC325201;
LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40 V. DIAMOND FARMING
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
CO., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF KERN, CASE NO. S-1500-CV254-348;
WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC. V. CITY OF LANCASTER, DIAMOND FARMING CO. V. CITY OF LANCASTER, DIAMOND FARMING CO. V. PALMDALE WATER DIST., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CASE NOS. RIC353840, RIC344436, RIC344668;
REBECCA LEE WILLIS V. LOS ANGELES, COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40, ET AL., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CASE NO. BC364533;
RICHARD WOOD V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS, DISTRICT NO. 40, ET AL., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CASE NO. BC391869
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DECEMBER 7, 2016
SHAWNDA R. DORN, CSR NO. 11387, RPR, CCRR, CLR OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 1
1 APPEARANCES:
2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: (RICHARD WOOD)
4 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. MCLACHLAN,
APC
5 BY: MICHAEL D. MCLACHLAN, ESQ.
44 HERMOSA AVENUE
6
7
8
9
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254
(310) 954-8270
10 FOR THE DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS:
11 LITTLE ROCK CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ET AL.
LEMIEUX & O'NEILL
12 BY: MICHAEL R. SILANDER, ESQ.
13 4165 EAST THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD
SUITE 350
14
15
16
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362
(805) 495-4770
17 FOR THE CROSS-COMPLAINANT:
18 ANTELOPE VALLEY EAST - KERN WATER AGENCY
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BANKS & WATSON
BY: JAMES J. BANKS, ESQ.
901 F. STREET
SUITE 200
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
(916) 325-1000
BRUNICK, MCELHANEY & KENNEDY
BY: LELAND P. MCELHANEY, ESQ.
1839 COMMERCENTER WEST
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408
(909) 889-8301
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
2
3 FOR THE CROSS-COMPLAINANT:
4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40
5 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER, LLP
BY: JEFFREY V. DUNN, ESQ.
6 WENDY Y. WANT, ESQ.
7 18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE
8 SUITE 1000
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
9 (949) 263-2600
10
11
12
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BY: WARREN WELLEN
13
14
PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL
500 WEST TEMPLE STREET
15
16
17
18
19
20
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
(213) 974-8407
GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND, LLP
BY: TIMOTHY T. COATES, ESQ.
5900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
TWELFTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90036
(310) 859-7811
21 FOR THE CROSS-DEFENDANT:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN &
GIRARD
BY: ERIC N. ROBINSON, ESQ.
400 CAPITOL MALL
TWENTY-SEVENTH FLOOR
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
(916) 321-4500
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 3
1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): 2 3 FOR THE INTERVENOR:
COUNTY OF SANITATION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY NOS. 14 & 20
4
5
6
ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS, LLP BY: CHRISTOPHER M. SANDERS, ESQ. 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 400 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95816-5905 (916) 447-2166
9 COURT CALL: 10 FOR THE DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT: 11 HELAN PINON HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 12
13
14
15
16 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP BY: KABIR CHOPRA, ESQ. 2361 ROSECRANS AVENUE SUITE 475 EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245-5086 (310) 527-6660 KCHOPRAAWATTORNEYS.COM
17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SANTA MONICA MOUNTAIN CONSERVANCY, ET AL. 18 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BY: NOAH MARC GOLDEN-KRASNER, ESQ. 19 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET,
SUITE 1700 20
21 FOR THE DEFENDANT:
22 TEJON RANCH COMPANY
23
24
25
26 27 28
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013 (213) 897-2614
KUHS & PARKER BY: ROBERT G. KUHS, ESQ. 1200 TRUXTUN AVENUE SUITE 200 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93303-2205 (661) 322-4004 [email protected]
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 4
1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
9 FOR THE DEFENDANT:
10
11
12
13
14
U.S. BORAX
15 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
BORON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
MCMURTREY & HARTSOCK & WORTH
BY: JAMES A. WORTH, ESQ.
2001 22ND STREET
SUITE 100
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 322-4417
MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
BY: WILLIAM M. SLOAN, ESQ.
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105
(415) 268-7209
CITY OF LANCASTER AND ROSAMOND COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
16
17
18
19
20
21
MURPHY & EVERTZ, LLP
BY: BRADFORD BENZ GRABSKE, ESQ.
650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE
SUITE 550
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
(714) 277-1700
FOR THE CROSS-COMPLAINANT:
22 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
23 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
24
25
26
27
28
BY: JOHN S. TOOTLE, ESQ.
POST OFFICE BOX 4345
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, CA 90274
(424) 237-7916
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 5
1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): 2 3 FOR THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS: 4 SHEEP CREEK, ET AL. 5 GRESHAM, SAVAGE, NOLAN & TIDEN, PC
BY: MICHAEL D. DAVIS, ESQ. 6 550 EAST HOSPITALITY LANE
SUITE 300 7 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408
(909) 890-4499 8 [email protected] 9
10 FOR THE CROSS-DEFENDANT: 11 CITY OF LOS ANGELES
KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDERMANN & 12 GIRARD
BY: STANLEY C. POWELL, ESQ. 13 400 CAPITOL MALL
TWENTY-SEVENTH FLOOR 14
15 16
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 321-4500 [email protected]
FOR THE CROSS-DEFENDANT: 17 ANTELOPE VALLEY MOBILE ESTATES
LAW OFFICES OF WALTER J. WILSON 18 BY: WALTER J. WILSON, ESQ.
333 WEST BROADWAY 19 SUITE 200
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802-4439 20 (562) 4432-3388 21 22 FOR THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS: 23 LANDIN V. INC., ET AL.
MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT, LLP 24 BY: THEODORE A. CHESTER, ESQ.
624 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE 25 SUITE 2000
26 27 28
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213) 629-7623
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 6
1 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
2
3 THE REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST:
4 ANTELOPE VALLEY WATER STORAGE, LLC
5 HERUM, CRABREE, SUNTAG
6
7
8
9
BY: JANELLE S. KRATTIGER, ESQ.
5757 PACIFIC AVENUE
10
11
12
SUITE 222
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95207
(209) 472-7700
13 ALSO PRESENT ON COURT CALL:
14 FRANK DONATO, NEAL WEISENBERGER, GEORGE LANE, SHELLY
15 SORSABAL, MARLON BARNES, JOHN UKKESTAD, IAN KRUPAR, RON
16 SMITH, JAMES DUBOIS, RICHARD A. WOOD
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CASE NUMBER:
CASE NAME:
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT 222
APPEARANCES:
REPORTER:
TIME:
1-05-CV-049053 (JCCP 4408)
ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER
CASES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2016
HON. JACK KOMAR, JUDGE
(AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
SHAWNDA R. DORN, CSR 11387
8:58 A.M.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND
12 PROCEED. IF ANYBODY IS STILL ON THE PHONE WHO HAS NOT
13 YET IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES, YOU CAN DO THAT AT THE END OF
14 THE PROCEEDINGS OR AT SUCH TIME AS YOU WANT TO BE HEARD.
15 WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY TWO MATTERS HERE. WE
16 HAVE THE MOTION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ELECTION RULES,
17 AS WELL AS A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL. I RECEIVED A
18 LOT OF MATERIAL FROM THE PARTIES CONCERNING BOTH OF
19 THESE. I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM CAREFULLY.
20 WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE ELECTION RULES
21 FIRST, AND I WOULD ASK COUNSEL WHO ARE GOING TO APPEAR
22 AND ADDRESS THE COURT ON THAT, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELVES
23 AND SIT AT COUNSEL TABLE.
24 ALL RIGHT. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REPORTER
25 NOW.
26 MS. WANG: WENDY WANG FROM BEST, BEST & KRIEGER ON
27 BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO.
28 40. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 8
1 MR. ROBINSON: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MY NAME
2 IS ERIC ROBINSON REPRESENTING THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
3 CROSS-DEFENDANT.
4 MR. SANDERS: CHRIS SANDERS ON BEHALF OF THE
5 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTIES
6 NO S. 14 AN D 20.
7 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING TO YOU AND TO
8 ALL OTHER COUNSEL HERE AND OTHER PLACES.
9 MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT AT THE TIME THAT WE
10 HAD THE FIRST HEARING ON THIS, THE COURT APPROVED THESE
11 RULES WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF (5) (A). IS THAT YOUR
12 RECOLLECTION?
13
14
15
MS. WANG: YES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. ROBINSON: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. SANDERS, IS THAT ALSO YOUR
16 RECOLLECTION?
17 MR. SANDERS: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
18 THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING
19 THAT AT THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THE CASE AND AT THE TIME
20 THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO, THAT IT WAS AGREED
21 THAT THE PUBLIC WATER PRODUCERS WOULD NOT HAVE A VOTE ON
22 THE SELECTION OF THE LANDOWNER REPRESENTATIVES TO
23 WATERMASTER. IS THAT ALSO CORRECT?
24 MS. WANG: I THINK PERSONAL TO WHAT'S STATED IN
25 THE PHYSICAL SOLUTION IS THE RIGHT HOLDER IDENTIFIED ON
26 EXHIBIT 4 AND THEIR SUCCESSOR WILL REQUIRE THE RIGHT TO
27 VOTE.
28 THE COURT: BUT THERE ARE NO PUBLIC WATER
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 9
1 PRODUCERS ON THAT LIST, ARE THERE?
2 MS. WANG: NOT AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT, NO,
3 YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: AND IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
5 ALLOCATION OF POWER BETWEEN THESE VARIOUS GROUPS WAS
6 INTENTIONALLY DEVELOPED SO THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME
7 BALANCE, AND THAT THE PUBLIC WATER PRODUCERS WOULD HAVE A
8 SEPARATE INTEREST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR BUSINESS
9 IS WATER USAGE AND THE LANDOWNERS. IS THAT ALSO CORRECT?
10 MS. WANG: BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME
11 OF THE SETTLEMENT, YES, YOUR HONOR.
12 THE COURT: I MEAN, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN
13 THE AGREEMENT, ISN'T IT?
14 MS. WANG: WELL, THE LANGUAGE, I THINK, LEFT OPEN
15 THE DOOR THAT IF THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIERS WERE TO
16 I ACQUIRE THE WATER RIGHTS IN EXHIBIT 4, USUALLY UNDER
17 CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.
18
19
THE COURT: WHY WOULD THAT BE FAIR?
MS. WANG: I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE
20 CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FUTURE CHANGE. IF THE WATER
21 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIERS WERE TO ACQUIRE ESSENTIALLY 70
22 PERCENT, 80 PERCENT OF THOSE WATER RIGHTS, EVENTUALLY I
23 THINK THE COURT HAS TO WEIGH THE PUBLIC WATERS OR THE
24 PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THOSE RIGHTS TO BE REPRESENTED ON THE
25 WATERMASTER BOARD.
26 THE COURT: WELL, YOU CERTAINLY WANT TO HAVE
27 BALANCE THAT IS NOT -- I GUESS, IT'S ROUGHLY ALLOCATED TO
28 WATER USAGE, IS IT NOT, TO WATER PUMPING?
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 10
1
2
MS. WANG: ROUGHLY FOR THE EXHIBIT 4 RIGHTS, YES.
MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SPEAK TO THAT
3 VERY QUICKLY?
4 THE COURT: SURE.
5 MR. ROBINSON: BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.
6 THE STARTING POSITION FOR THE BALANCE OF
7 POWER ON WHICH THE LANDOWNERS HAVE TWO SEATS ON THE
8 WATERMASTER BOARD, AND THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIERS HAVE
9 TWO SEATS DOES NOT ACTUALLY REFLECT THE AMOUNT OF
10 ADJUSTED NATIVE SAFE FUEL, THE AMOUNT OF WATER, IF YOU
11 WILL, CONTROLLED BY EACH SIDE ON THIS SCALE.
12 THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIERS CONTROL 17
13 PERCENT OF THE WATER. THE LANDOWNERS CONTROL 83 PERCENT
14 EVEN AND SO THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE, YOU SEE, MUCH
15 MORE WATER IS CONTROLLED BY THE LANDOWNERS; AND, YET, WE
16 ONLY HAVE TWO SEATS. FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE IN
17 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIERS WOULD HAVE TO
18
19
20
21
ACQUIRE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WATER. AND SO THE BALANCE
OF POWER DOES NOT EXACTLY REFLECT THE AMOUNT OF WATER
CONTROLLED BY THE TWO SIDES ON THE SCALE.
THE COURT: I THINK I MISSTATED WHAT I WAS
22 THINKING AT THE TIME. THE ACTUAL VOTES FOR THE
23 WATERMASTER LANDOWNER REPRESENTATIVES ARE APPORTIONED
24 ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF PUMPING THAT EACH OF THEM DO
25 WITHIN THAT MILL UNIT; IS THAT TRUE?
26 MS. WANG: ROUGHLY FOR EXHIBIT 4, BUT THERE IS
27 OTHER WATER RIGHTS INTERESTS THAT'S NOT DIRECTLY
28 REFLECTED IN ALL THE 5 (4) (C), SO THE STORAGE WATER RIGHTS
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 11
1 AND WHAT NOT. AND I THINK DISTRICT NO. 40, AS ONE OF THE
2 LARGEST WATER SUPPLIER PURVEYORS IN THE REGION, HAS A
3 4(C) PROBABLY BECAUSE OF ITS INTEREST IN MAINTAINING
4 SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES FOR THE GREATER AREA.
5 THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IF WE GO BACK TO
6 THE STARTING POINT, THE CONDITIONS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES
7 AS THEY EXIST AT THE TIME THAT THE STIPULATION WAS
8 ENTERED INTO, AND THOSE REMAIN TRUE TODAY; IS THAT RIGHT?
9 MS. WANG: ROUGHLY. I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME
10 OTHER AGENCIES OTHER THAN DISTRICT NO. 40 WHO HAVE
11 ACQUIRED EXHIBIT 4 RIGHTS.
12 THE COURT: OTHER PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIERS. HAS THE
13 DISTRICT 40 ACQUIRED EXHIBIT 4 LAND?
14
15
16
17
MS. WANG: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: NOT YET?
MS. WANG: NO.
THE COURT: HAS ANYBODY, ANY PUBLIC WATER
18 SUPPLIER?
19 MS. WANG: ROSAMOND. I BELIEVE ROSAMOND COMMUNITY
20 DISTRICT HAVE ACQUIRED RIGHTS OR LAND FROM EXHIBIT 4
21 RIGHTS.
22 THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, AT THE TIME THAT THE
23 COURT APPROVED THE STIPULATION, THE AGREEMENT, SETTLEMENT
24 BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND INDEPENDENTLY APPROVED PHYSICAL
25 SOLUTION AND THE CONCEPT FOR IT, IT WAS THE COURT'S
26 INTENT TO PROVIDE FOR A BALANCE THAT HAD BEEN AGREED TO
27 BY THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF THE VOTING POWER, AND THAT
28 WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED CONTEMPLATING WHATEVER MINOR
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 12
1 SHIFTS THERE MIGHT BE IN OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THAT WAS
2 OWNED BY THE PARTIES ON EXHIBIT 4.
3 THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN
4 CHANGE, AND I THINK THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT
5 FROM THE OUTSET IN THIS CASE, THAT WHATEVER ATTEMPTED
6 RESOLUTION WE REACH IS ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SUBJECT
7 IN EQUITY TO MODIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS IN THE EVENT
8 THAT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES OCCUR.
9 AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HOWEVER YOU PHRASE
10 IT, ALL YOU ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS WHO HAS THE
11 BURDEN OF COMING TO THE COURT TO ASK FOR A MODIFICATION
12 OR REVISION SO THAT MY INCLINATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO
13 RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE CHANGES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, AND I
14 WAS -- I WAS LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE. LET
15 ME SEE IF I CAN FIND WHAT I WROTE TO MYSELF.
16 I WAS GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF
17 THE PROPOSED RULES AND SPECIFICALLY THE VERSION THAT I
18 INDICATED THE TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
19 (5) (A) AND THE PROBLEMS THERE. AND I KIND OF RESTATED IT
20 FOR MYSELF, AND HERE IS THE LANGUAGE THAT I THINK I'M
21 INCLINED TO WANT TO APPROVE.
22 FIRST OF ALL, THE LANGUAGE WILL BE THE
23 SAME, AND THEN WE GET TO THE PARAGRAPH:
24 "TWO LANDOWNER PARTIES EXCLUSIVE OF
25 PUBLIC AGENCIES AND MEMBERS OF THE
26 NON-PUMPER AND SMA~L PUMPER CLASSES
27 SELECTED BY THE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE
28 LANDOWNERS IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT 4 WERE
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
THE SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST" -- AND I HAVE
A FOOTNOTE THERE THAT I'LL GET TO IN A
SECOND -- "BASED ON THEIR PROPORTIONATE
SHARE OF THE TOTAL PRODUCTION RIGHTS
IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT 4."
AND THE FOOTNOTE SAYS THIS: "IN
7 ORDER TO MAINTAIN VOTING BALANCE IN THE
8 ANTELOPE VALLEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
9 STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT, PUBLIC WATER
10 PRODUCERS WHO REQUIRE WATER RIGHTS FOR
11 EXHIBIT 4 LANDOWNERS SHALL NOT VOTE FOR
12 LANDOWNER REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
13 WATERMASTER BOARD WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER OF
14 THE COURT UPON PROOF IN EQUITY OF GOOD
15 CAUSE."
16 AND THAT PRESERVES THE STATUS QUO THAT WAS
17 AGREED TO AND WHICH THE COURT HAD IN MIND WHEN HE
18 APPROVED IT. BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES A SPECIFIC BASIS UPON
19 WHICH ANY PARTY CAN SEEK A REVISION OF THE TERMS OF THAT
20 PROVISION.
21 SO LET ME HEAR IF THERE IS ANY OBJECTION TO
22 THAT LANGUAGE THAT I JUST READ.
23 MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE CITY OF
24 LOS ANGELES, NO OBJECTION, AND WE AFFIRMATIVELY SUPPORT
25 THAT RESOLUTION OF THIS DISPUTE.
26
27
28
THE COURT: MISS WANG?
MS. WANG: NO OBJECTION.
MR. MCLACHLAN: MICHAEL MCLACHLAN FOR RICHARD
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 14
1 WOOD, THAT LANGUAGE IS ACCEPTABLE.
2 THE COURT: OKAY. WITH THAT MODIFICATION THEN,
3 THE VERSION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT AT THE FIRST
4 HEARING, I THINK IT WAS IN SEPTEMBER ON THIS ISSUE,
5 SHOULD BE THE FINAL VERSION THAT'S PREPARED FOR THE
6 COURT'S SIGNATURE.
7 WHO WANTS TO DO THAT?
8 MR. ROBINSON: YOUR HONOR, ERIC ROBINSON FOR THE
9 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, WE'LL AGREE TO SUBMIT THAT
THE COURT: OKAY. 10
11 MR. ROBINSON: AN ORDER APPROVING THOSE RULES
12 WITH THIS CHANGE FOR THE COURT'S APPROVAL.
13 THE COURT: YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND
14 THANK YOU FOR YOUR GETTING TOGETHER ON THIS AND AT LEAST
15 TRYING TO RESOLVE IT, BUT I NEVER MIND COMING TO
16 LOS ANGELES FOR A DAY. WE HAD TO BE HERE ANYWAY FOR
17 ANOTHER MATTER ON THIS CALENDAR.
18 SO LET'S TAKE THAT ONE UP NOW, AND THAT'S
19 THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY. WHO IS GOING TO APPEAR ON
20 THAT?
21 MR. BANKS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JAMES BANKS
22 ON BEHALF OF THE ANTELOPE VALLEY EASTERN WATER DISTRICT.
23 MR. COATES: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. TIMOTHY
24 COATES ON BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS
25 DISTRICT NO. 40.
26 MR. DUNN: AND GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JEFFREY
27 DUNN ON BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT
28 NO. 40.
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 15
1 MR. WELLEN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. WARREN
2 WELLEN WITH THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE ON BEHALF OF
3 DISTRICT 40.
4 MR. MCELHANEY: LELAND MCELHANEY ON BEHALF OF
5 DISTRICT 40.
6 MR. GRABSKE: AND, YOUR HONOR, BRAD GRABSKE ON
7 BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER AND ROSAMOND COMMUNITY
8 SERVICE DISTRICT 40.
9 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND
10 MR. MCELHANEY.
11 MR. MCELHANEY: LELAND MCELHANEY ON BEHALF OF
12 DISTRICT 40.
13 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THIS IS AN AUTHORITATIVE
14 CASE IN SO MANY WAYS. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME READING YOUR
15 BRIEFS. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT IT. I
16 SPENT SOME TIME READING CASES THAT DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE.
17 AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FACTUALLY, CORRECT ME IF I'M
18 WRONG, WE'RE AT THE CURRENT SITUATION WHERE NO MEMBER OF
19 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER REPRESENTS AVEK; IS THAT CORRECT?
20
21
MR. BANKS: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AND AVEK HAS REPRESENTED DISTRICT 40
22 FROM EITHER PRIOR TO THE COORDINATION OF THIS MATTER,
23 CERTAINLY OVER ABOUT THE LAST 11 YEARS DURING THE COURSE
24 OF THIS LITIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
25 MR. DUNN: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
26 THE COURT: CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME WHY AVEK NEVER
27 OBJECTED TO THEIR CONTINUED REPRESENTATION IN THIS
28 LITIGATION AND IN THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, I
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 16
1 SUPPOSE, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT? WHY WOULD THAT OCCUR?
2 MR. BANKS: YOUR HONOR, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT.
3 OBVIOUSLY, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN CONNECTION WITH
4 THIS RECUSAL MOTION. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT IT IS
5 COUNSEL'S OBLIGATION TO CALL THE CONFLICT TO THE CLIENT'S
6 ATTENTION, AND THAT OBLIGATION IS EXPRESSED IN THE RULES
7 OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, ET CETERA, AND IN THIS INSTANCE
8 SUBDIVISION C OF RULE 3-310.
9 THE POTENTIALITY OF A CONFLICT WAS
10 EXPRESSED IN A LETTER AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS
11 LITIGATION, BUT THAT'S REALLY AS FAR AS IT WENT. AND WE
12 NOTE KNOW FROM THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THAT BEST, BEST &
13 KRIEGER KNOWS HOW TO WRITE A CONFLICT ISSUE OR A CONFLICT
14 LETTER BECAUSE THEY DID SO IN THE ROSAMOND MATTER, BUT
15 THEY SIMPLY DIDN'T DO IT HERE. AND AS THE CASES EXPRESS
16 -- AND I HOPE I'M RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION,
17 YOUR HONOR, BUT AS THE CASE LAW EXPRESSES, IT REALLY IS
18 COUNSEL'S DUTY, AND IF COUNSEL DOESN'T ADHERE TO THAT --
19 THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DUTY IS. THAT'S
20 REALLY NOT MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS AS A PRACTICAL
21 MATTER, WHY WAS -- AND AVEK WAS REPRESENTED THE ENTIRE
22 TIME BY OTHER COUNSEL AS SOON AS THERE WAS AN ACTUAL
23 I CONFLICT THAT OCCURRED, AND NOT ONE WORD CAME FROM THAT
24 COUNSEL. I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT THAT COUNSEL DID NOT CALL
25 ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM TO THE BOARD.
26 MR. BANKS: I THINK THE CONFLICT ISSUE BECAME
27 MANIFEST PRIMARILY IN THE BOARD'S MIND WITH THE
28 SETTLEMENT PROCESS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE JUSTICE ROBIE.
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 17
1 I'M NOT -- I WASN'T THERE, YOUR HONOR.
2 THE COURT: THAT'S REALLY NOT CORRECT. THE
3 CONFLICT OCCURRED IN 2005 AT THE TIME WHEN A CLAIM WAS
4 FILED THAT WAS AGAINST AVEK, AND AVEK FILED A
5 CROSS-COMPLAINT.
6 MR. BANKS: THAT IS VERY TRUE, AND WE MAKE THAT
7 POINT IN OUR PAPERS. THE ACTUAL CONFLICT MANIFESTED
8 ITSELF IN 2006. THAT MUCH IS TRUE WITH THE FILING OF
9 OPPOSING PLEADINGS CLAIMING THE SAME RETURN RIGHTS. THE
10 BOARD FOR WHATEVER REASON DIDN'T MAKE AN ISSUE ABOUT THIS
11 CONFLICT UNTIL AFTER THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS. IN 2015 I
12 THINK THERE WAS SOME SENTIMENT THAT IT WANTED TO SEE THE
13 -- THAT PHASE OF THE LITIGATION THROUGH WITHOUT UPSETTING
14 THE--
15 THE COURT: WITHOUT A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME, I
16 SUSPECT, AND WE'RE VERY SATISFIED WITH THE LEAD THAT
17 DISTRICT 40 WAS TAKING IN THIS LITIGATION. FROM THE
18 BENCH, AS I RECALL THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION HERE,
19 THERE WERE SEVERAL PLAYERS WHOSE COUNSEL DID, IN FACT,
20 TAKE A LEAD POSITION WITH REGARD TO THEIR CLIENTS'
21 INTERESTS.
22 AND LET ME ASK ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THAT.
23 THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN AVEK AND DISTRICT 40 TO
24 COOPERATE IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHTS AND THE
25 PUBLIC WATER PRODUCERS, WAS THERE NOT?
26 MR. BANKS: THERE IS, AS I SEE IN THE RECORD, AN
27 AGREEMENT, BUT THE AGREEMENT, AT LEAST AS I READ IT,
28 DOESN'T REQUIRE AVEK TO COOPERATE IN ALL INSTANCES, AND
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 18
1 OBVIOUSLY THE PARTIES HAVE ANTAGONISTIC POSITIONS IN THIS
2 LITIGATION.
3 THE COURT: AT LEAST AS TO A COUPLE OF THINGS BUT
4 NOT MANY.
5 MR. BANKS: AT LEAST AS TO THREE, YES.
6 THE COURT: SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU ENTERED INTO
7 THE SETTLEMENT THAT RESOLVED THE DISPUTE AS TO THOSE
8 ISSUES WITH REGARD TO DISTRICT 40 AND AVEK, WAS THERE
9 SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT NOW IS THE TIME TO
10 FILE THE DISQUALIFICATION REQUEST?
11 MR. BANKS: WELL, I THINK THE -- THE CONFLICTS, AS
12 I UNDERSTAND IT -- AGAIN, I'M AT A LITTLE BIT OF A
13 DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE. YOU KNOW, I'M VERY
14 NEW TO THIS PARTICULAR LITIGATION. YOU HAVE BEEN LIVING
15 WITH IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS. THE CONFLICTS REALLY BECAME
16 MANIFEST IN AVEK'S MIND WITH THE SEPTEMBER 2015 BRIEFING
17 AND THE CONCLUSION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, OF THE SETTLEMENT
18 PROCESS. THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE MR. MCELHANEY'S E-MAIL TO
19 DISTRICT 40'S COUNSEL COMPLAINING ABOUT AND NOTING THE
20 ANTAGONISTIC POSITIONS THAT THE PARTIES ARE MAKING IN
21 THEIR BRIEFING VIs-A-VIS RETURN RIGHTS; AND THEN AVEK'S
22 THEN GENERAL COUNSEL'S E-MAIL TO A BOARD MEMBER TRYING TO
23 EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE; YOU KNOW, BEST, BEST
24 & KRIEGER, OF COURSE, TAKING THE POSITION THAT AT LEAST
25 EARLY IN THE LITIGATION, THEY DID NOT THINK THAT AVEK AND
26 DISTRICT 40 WOULD HAVE ANTAGONISTIC POSITIONS; AND,
27 INDEED, I BELIEVE THEY THOUGHT THAT AVEK WOULDN'T BECOME
28 INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION AT ALL. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 19
1 TIME, THEY PROVED THAT SUPPOSITION BEING CORRECT.
2 THE FACT OF THE MATTER, YOUR HONOR, IS
3 WE'RE STILL ON THE HORNS OF A VERY THORNY DILEMMA, AND I
4 UNDERSTAND THAT. IT'S ABSOLUTELY A CONCURRENT
5 REPRESENTATIONAL CONFLICT, AND THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR ON
6 WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN.
7 THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WE'VE GOT
8 AN APPEAL GOING ON BY SEVERAL OF THE PARTIES HERE. AVEK
9 IS NOT A PARTY, ARE THEY?
10 MR. BANKS: I'LL DEFER THAT QUESTION TO,
11 MR. MCELHANEY.
12
13
14 APPEAL.
15
16
17
THE COURT: MR. MCELHANEY.
MR. MCELHANEY: WE WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN THE
THE COURT: YOU ARE NOT APPEALING?
MR. MCELHANEY: WE'RE NOT APPEALING.
THE COURT: YOU ARE SUPPORTING THE JUDGMENT AND
18 THE STIPULATION, ARE YOU NOT?
19
20
MR. MCELHANEY: THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: AND THAT'S THE SAME POSITION THAT
21 DISTRICT 40 IS TAKING, ISN'T IT?
22 MR. MCELHANEY: THAT'S CORRECT. YOUR HONOR, IF I
23 MIGHT ANSWER THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE
24 ORIGINAL QUESTION.
THE COURT: SURE. 25
26 MR. MCELHANEY: WHEN AVEK DECLINED THE CONFLICT
27 WAIVER THAT WAS PROPOSED BY BB&K THROUGH MR. RIDDELL, ONE
28 OF ITS ATTORNEYS, WHO WAS THEN AVEK'S GENERAL COUNSEL,
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 20
1 MR. RIDDELL THEREAFTER INDICATED IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE
2 MATTER WOULD BE RESOLVED, THE CONFLICT WOULD NOT BE A
3 PROBLEM, AS LONG AS THERE WAS INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE COUNSEL
4 REPRESENTING AVEK IN THE GROUNDWATER LITIGATION. OF
5 COURSE, THAT DID NOT END THE CONFLICT. THE CONFLICT
6 CONTINUED TO EXIST.
7 NONETHELESS, AVEK RELIED UPON THE LEGAL
8 ADVICE PROVIDED BY ITS GENERAL COUNSEL BB&K TO
9 MR. RIDDELL, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY NO FURTHER
10 OBJECTION WAS MADE THEREAFTER BY AVEK TO CONTINUE THE
11 REPRESENTATION OF DISTRICT 40 BY BB&K.
12 THEN AS WE GOT CLOSE TO THE END OF THIS
13 LITIGATION, A FILE BRIEF BEING FILED --
14 THE COURT: IF YOU ARE ON COURT CALL, WE CAN HEAR
15 YOU. PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE. MUTE IT.
16 MR. MCELHANEY: AS WE WERE GETTING NEAR THE END IN
17 SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER 2015, AND FINAL BRIEFS WERE BEING
18 FILED, A NEW AVEK BOARD MEMBER, HIMSELF AN ACCOMPLISHED
19 ATTORNEY, NOTICED THE CONFLICTING POSITIONS THAT WERE
20 CONTINUING TO BE TAKEN BY AVEK ON THE ONE HAND AND BB&K'S
21 OTHER CLIENT, DISTRICT 40, ON THE OTHER HAND. HE RAISED
22 THE CONFLICT ISSUE AGAIN AT THAT TIME.
23 AVEK THEN RETAINED CONFLICTS COUNSEL TO
24 ADVISE IT FURTHER ON THE MATTER. THAT LED TO THE JANUARY
25 2016 LETTER TO BE BB&K DEMANDING THAT IT RECUSE ITSELF,
26 WHICH REQUEST WAS CURTLY DECLINED BY BB&K, AND THAT THEN
27 RESULTED IN THE MOTION THAT'S PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT
28 THIS TIME.
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 21
1 SO I THINK THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS
2 THAT AVEK RELIED UPON THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT IT RECEIVED
3 FROM BB&K'S COUNSEL THAT A CONFLICT WOULD BE RESOLVED.
4 THERE WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM AS LONG AS THERE WAS OUTSIDE
5 INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REPRESENTING AVEK IN THE GROUNDWATER
6 LITIGATION.
7 THAT, HOWEVER, WAS NOT CORRECT. THAT DID
8 NOT CURE THE CONFLICT. BUT IT DOES EXPLAIN WHY AVEK IN
9 RELIANCE UPON THE COUNSEL -- BB&K'S ADVICE AS ITS LEGAL
10 COUNSEL DID NOT FURTHER OBJECT THEREAFTER.
11 AND THE COURT NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT BB&K
12 REMAINED AS GENERAL COUNSEL UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2015, AND
13 THAT'S WHEN AVEK THEN WENT TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL CONFLICT
14 SPECIALISTS TO ADVISE THEM FURTHER ON THE MATTER AND THEN
15 PROCEEDED BASED UPON THE ADVICE IT THEN RECEIVED FROM
16 CONFLICTS COUNSEL.
17 SO I THINK THAT'S THE EXPLANATION AND THE
18 ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ORIGINALLY ANSWERED OR ASKED.
19 EXCUSE ME.
20 THE COURT: OKAY. THAT MAY EXPLAIN WHY THEY
21 DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT EXCUSES
22 THEIR FAILURE.
23 MR. MCELHANEY: WELL, I'D ONLY MENTION,
24 YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW, AS MR. BANKS POINTED OOT AND WE'LL
25 POINT OUT FOR SURE THAT CLIENT DELAY IN RAISING THE ISSUE
26 IS NOT A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN YOU HAVE A CONFLICT
27 DURING CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT
28 WE HAD HERE.
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 22
1
2
3
THE COURT: HAD.
MR. MCELHANEY: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. BANKS: AND STILL HAVE, YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S THE QUESTION. IF THE
5 APPEAL IS AFFIRMED, THERE IS NO CONFLICT, IS THERE?
6 MR. BANKS: THE POINT ISN'T WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN
7 THE FUTURE, YOUR HONOR. THE POINT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN
8 THE PAST. AND HERE IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT BB&K REPRESENTED
9 TWO CLIENTS WITH ANTAGONISTIC INTERESTS IN THE
10 LITIGATION. AND IT'S -- YOU REALLY COULDN'T SEE A
11 CLEARER CONCURRENT CLIENT CONFLICT. IT IMPLICATES BB&K'S
12 OBLIGATION OF DISLOYALTY, BOTH CLIENTS.
13 AND IN THIS INSTANCE, BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
14 IS A FINE LAW FIRM. I'VE WORKED WITH THEM IN THE PAST.
15 WE ALL HAVE. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE THEY DROPPED THE BALL,
16 AND THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR AS TO WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
17 AND DELAY ISN'T A FACTOR IN A CONCURRENT CONFLICT SYSTEM.
18 IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE THE DUTY OF LOYALTY IS IMPLICATED.
19 AND WE LOOKED AGAIN. WE HAVEN'T FOUND A
20 CASE IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAS DIRECTLY HELD THAT IMPLIED
21 CONSENT, WHICH REALLY IS WHAT DELAY IS, COULD BE A FACTOR
22 IN THIS SORT OF CONFLICT.
23 THE COURT: WELL, THERE IS A LOT OF LANGUAGE IN
24 SOME OF THE CASES THAT CAST DOUBT ON THE PER SE NATURE OF
25 THE DISQUALIFICATION. IT'S ALL DICTA. AND IT CERTAINLY
26 IS NOT CLEARLY ON POINT, BUT IT DOES EXPRESS THE
27 INTENTIONS OF SOME OF THE JUDGES WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THE
28 CIRCUMSTANCES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ALWAYS
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 23
1 GOING TO BE PER SE IN A CONCURRENT OR CONTEMPORANEOUS
2 REPRESENTATION. BUT SOMETIMES COURT'S RULE ON SOMETHING
3 OTHER THAN -- OR I SHOULD SAY ON DICTA, BUT WE'LL SEE.
4 LET ME HEAR FROM DISTRICT 40'S COUNSEL.
5 MR. DUNN: I'LL START FIRST, YOUR HONOR, MR. DUNN,
6 ON THE FACTUAL SCENARIO. I'M NOT QUITE SURE THE TIMING
7 OF THE EVENTS IS AS WAS EXPLAINED. THE DECLARATION THAT
8 I FILED IN OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION WAS AN EFFORT TO
9 SORT OF CLEARLY LAY OUT THE CHRONOLOGY. WITHOUT GOING
10 THROUGH THAT ENTIRE DECLARATION BUT ADDRESSING WHAT MIGHT
11 BE THE COURT'S QUESTION IS AS THE COURT IS AWARE, THERE
12 WAS IN TERMS OF THE TIMING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
13 WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE COURT, FOLLOWED BY
14 THE COURT'S OWN PHYSICAL SOLUTION. AND IT WAS AFTER THAT
15 POINT THAT THE PARTIES HAD REACHED A SETTLEMENT THAT AVEK
16 DECIDED TO TERMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH MY LAW FIRM
17 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER. SO THAT HAPPENED POST SETTLEMENT.
18 AND THEN THERE HAPPENED TO BE POST-SETTLEMENT
19 PROCEEDINGS, POST-JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PHYSICAL
20 SOLUTION, OF COURSE, HAS NOW BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURT.
21 ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING EVENTS THAT STANDS
22 OUT IN OUR VIEW IS THAT AFTER THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO
23 THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AFTER AVEK TERMINATED THAT
24 RELATIONSHIP WITH BEST, BEST & KRIEGER, WHICH BY THE WAY,
25 THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MOVING PAPERS THAT INDICATES
26 THERE IS NO DECLARATION, NOTHING TO SUPPORT ANY
27 ALLEGATION, AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION MADE THAT THERE
28 WAS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SHARED WITH MR. RIDDELL.
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 24
1 NONE OF THAT IS BEFORE THIS COURT.
2 BUT, ANYWAY, LEADING UP TO WHERE I WANT TO
3 GET IS AFTER THIS WHOLE SCENARIO, WE HAVE THE SETTLEMENT
4 AGREEMENT. NOW BEST, BEST & KRIEGER IS NO LONGER
5 REPRESENTING AVEK AT ANY LEVEL, EVEN THOUGH, I THINK, FOR
6 A DECADE THEY HAD BEEN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL. THERE WAS A
7 FILING THAT DISTRICT 40 SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT. I DON'T
8 EVEN REMEMBER THE EXACT DETAIL OF THE FILING. IT'S IN
9 THE DECLARATION.
10 BUT WHAT WAS SO STRIKING IS AT THAT POINT
11 AVEK FILED A JOINDER. AVEK FILED A WRITTEN JOINDER
12 IT'S IN THE COURT'S RECORD SUPPORTING BEST, BEST &
13 KRIEGER'S FILING ON BEHALF OF DISTRICT 40. AND WE HAD
14 ALREADY RECEIVED THE LETTER AT THAT POINT FROM -- FROM
15 COUNSEL FOR AVEK.
16 AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WE LOOKED AT THAT,
17 AND WE LOOKED AT EACH OTHER, AND WE JUST ASKED OURSELVES
18 ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU REALLY KIDDING ME? YOU ARE
19 GOING TO PUT ON THE COURT RECORD NOW THAT YOU ARE GOING
20 TO OBJECT TO THIS BUT THEN SUPPORT IN A JOINDER THE
21 FILING THAT WE DID HERE?
22 AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST
23 TELLING OR AT LEAST THE MOST RECENT RELEVANT FACT HERE IS
24 THAT AFTER THIS CULMINATION OF THIS LONG HISTORY OF
25 EVENTS IN THIS CASE, THE COURT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE
26 SETTLEMENT, THE COURT APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT, THE
27 COURT'S PHYSICAL SOLUTION, THEN AVEK TERMINATES THE
28 RELATIONSHIP, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE HAD THE BRUNICK LAW
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 25
1 FIRM FOR A DECADE AT LEAST REPRESENTING THEM, AND THEN WE
2 KIND OF GO NOW INTO SORT OF POST-JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS
3 INVOLVING THE APPEAL MOSTLY. THERE IS THIS JOINDER.
4 I THINK WHAT TROUBLES ME THE MOST -- AND
5 I'LL DEFER HERE BECAUSE MR. COATES IS HERE TO ARGUE THE
6 MOTION. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE FACTUAL SIDE OF THIS.
7 BUT WHAT TROUBLES ME -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TROUBLES
8 ME THE MOST ABOUT WHAT I HEAR FROM AVEK'S COUNSEL, AND I
9 UNDERSTAND HE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE, IS THIS
10 CONCEPT THAT SOMEHOW THE PHYSICAL SOLUTION THAT'S BEEN
11 APPROVED BY THIS COURT LEAVES ISSUES UNDECIDED. WE ARE
12 GREATLY CONCERNED WITH THAT CONTENTION. IT IS FALSE.
13 THAT PHYSICAL SOLUTION IS A COMPREHENSIVE ADJUDICATION OF
14 THE PARTIES' WATER RIGHTS. IT HAS TO BE UNDER THE
15 MC CARRAN AMENDMENT.
16 FOR AVEK NOW TO BE HERE IN COURT AND MAKE A
17 REPRESENTATION THAT SOMEHOW THERE IS STILL ONGOING WATER
18 RIGHTS DISPUTES HERE, THIS COURT KNOWS THAT'S PATENTLY
19 FALSE, AND THAT IS AN INDIRECT, IF NOT DIRECT ATTACK ON
20 THE COMPREHENSIVE NATURE OF THIS JUDGMENT. AND WE ARE
21 VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS NOT TURN IN TO BE A
22 BEHIND-THE-SCENES SORT OF BACKDOOR ATTACK ON THIS
23 JUDGMENT BECAUSE ANY REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL HERE TODAY
24 THAT THERE ARE UNRESOLVED WATER RIGHTS ISSUES BETWEEN ANY
25 OF THE PARTIES TO THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT CORRECT. THAT'S
26 PATENTLY FALSE.
THE COURT: OKAY. 27
28 MR. COATES: I'LL SPEAK TO THE LEGAL ISSUES,
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 26
1 YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE WHETHER THERE IS
2 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION. AND I THINK THE KEY CASE TO
3 LOOK AT ON THIS IS THE SPEEDEE OIL CASE BECAUSE IT IS A
4 CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION CASE, AND THE COURT MAY RECALL
5 THERE, IT WAS A PARTY CONSULTED SOMEONE WHO WAS OF
6 COUNSEL TO ANOTHER LAW FIRM THAT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING
7 HIRED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY. THE PERSON CONSULTED THE OF
8 COUNSEL, IMMEDIATELY FIRED HIM, BUT THEN ALSO MOVED FOR
9 DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE FIRM OF WHICH HE WAS
10 AFFILIATED. AND IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS
11 DISQUALIFICATION, THE SUPREME COURT MADE SEVERAL KEY
12 RULINGS HERE.
13 FIRST, THAT IN A DISQUALIFICATION SETTING,
14 IT'S AN EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE COURT, THAT THE
15 COURT HAS OTHER INTERESTS. AND A NUMBER OF THE CASES
16 THEY CITE, THEY TALK ABOUT AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION,
17 THIS FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CASE, THE COLLINS WEIGER
18 (PH.) CASE AND SOME -- THE FLATT VERSUS SUPERIOR COURT,
19 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE. NEITHER OF THOSE IS A
20 DISQUALIFICATION CASE. FLATT IS A MALPRACTICE CASE. THE
21 OTHER IS A MALPRACTICE CASE, I BELIEVE, ALSO OR AT LEAST
22 A DISPUTE OVER FEES.
23 IN THE DISQUALIFICATION CONTEXT, THE
24 SUPREME COURT NOTED IN SPEEDEE OIL, YOU HAVE TO WEIGH
25 VARIOUS INTERESTS, AND ONE OF THE INTERESTS IS THE PARTY
26 WHOSE COUNSEL IS GOING TO BE DISQUALIFIED. AND THAT'S
27 WHY IT'S INHERENTLY EQUITABLE AND WHY I THINK THERE IS NO
28 RULE OF AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION.
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 27
1 AND IN SPEEDEE OIL THE COURT WAS CAREFUL TO
2 SAY, LOOK, YOU DON'T APPLY THIS IN LITERALIST FASHION, IN
3 TECHNICAL FASHION. YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO GO DOWN AND WEIGH
4 THE EQUITIES OF THE PARTIES. AND, OF COURSE, THE
5 MAJORITY OF SPEEDEE OIL SAYS, OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT THE
6 DUTY OF LOYALTY, HOW IS THAT THREATENED HERE BY THE
7 CONSULTATION WITH THE OF COUNSEL, AND THE MAJORITY SAYS
8 THAT'S NOT REALLY A FACTOR. THAT'S NOT REALLY A FACTOR
9 BECAUSE HE TALKED TO THE OF COUNSEL FOR A SHORT WHILE AND
10 IMMEDIATELY FIRED HIM. THEN THEY WENT DOWN AND THEY
11 SAID, ON THE OTHER HAND, BECAUSE OF THE PRESUMPTION OF
12 EXCHANGE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS,
13 THAT WOULD WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION.
14 BEAR IN MIND, JUSTICE MOSK FILES A
15 CONCURRING OPINION, DOESN'T JOIN THE MAJORITY, PRECISELY
16 BECAUSE HE SAYS WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ANALYZING THE
17 IMPACT ON THE DUTY OF LOYALTY? WHY ARE YOU ANALYZING
18 WHETHER CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN CONVEYED?
19 IT'S AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION, BUT THE MAJORITY WENT
20 THROUGH THOSE FACTORS.
21 AND I THINK THE COURT HAS HIT ON HERE THAT
22 IF YOU GO THROUGH THE FACTORS HERE, YOU HAVE THE VERY
23 SORT OF INTOLERABLE DELAY MUCH MORE THAN THE CASES IN THE
24 -- NOT CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION, BUT THE CONSECUTIVE
25 REPRESENTATION CASES. THEY ARE CASES THAT DENY
26 DISQUALIFICATION FOR AS LITTLE AS 14 MONTHS DELAY OR 17
27 MONTHS DELAY.
28 HERE WE HAVE A FULL DECADE OF DELAY. THEY
Veri text Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 28
1 WERE GIVEN A LETTER SAYING WE THINK THERE IS A CONFLICT
2 HERE. PLEASE WAIVE IT. FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, THEY
3 ESSENTIALLY RODE ON THE COATTAILS OR HELD PARTLY ON THE
4 COATTAILS OF THE WORK DONE BY BBK FOR DISTRICT 40.
5 AND AT THIS POINT IN THE LITIGATION,
6 DISTRICT NO. 40 IS GOING TO SUFFER MASSIVE HARM BECAUSE
7 THEY, ACCORDING TO AVEK, HAVE TO GO OUT AND GET NEW
8 COUNSEL WHO HAS TO ESSENTIALLY RELEARN THE MASSIVE RECORD
9 IN THIS CASE FOR PURPOSES OF RESPONDING TO THE APPEAL,
10 AND THAT IS -- THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHES IT'S HUGELY
11 PREJUDICIAL FROM A COST STANDPOINT, ALSO FROM A LOGISTIC
12 STANDPOINT. IT'S ALREADY A LITIGATION THAT'S DRAGGED ON
13 A LONG TIME. NOW NEW COUNSEL IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET UP
14 TO SPEED.
15 SO THE PREJUDICE TO DISTRICT NO. 40 HERE IS
16 OVERWHELMING FROM THE DELAY. YOU LOOK AT THE PREJUDICE
17 TO AVEK, YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T
18 ANY. AS MR. DUNN HAS INDICATED, THIS IS WHAT WE ALL BEEN
19 WRAPPED UP BY SETTLEMENT. THERE IS NO EXCHANGE OF
20 CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THIS LITIGATION.
21 MR. DUNN, I THINK, TESTIFIES IN PARAGRAPH 53 OF HIS
22 DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT.
23 EVEN IF THERE WAS A PRESUMED EXCHANGE OF
24 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, THAT'S BEEN WAIVED. THAT'S
25 OCCURRED OVER A FULL DECADE. IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS
26 SOMEONE SENDING YOU CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS, AND THEN
27 TEN YEARS LATER SAYING YOU KNOW WHAT WE SENT YOU, WE WANT
28 TO TAKE THAT BACK. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THOSE ARE
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 29
1 EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES. THEY ARE PRINCIPLES OF WAIVER.
2 AND THE PREJUDICE TO DISTRICT NO. 40 IS EXTREME.
3 IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN TERMS OF
4 HOW ATTORNEYS LOOK AT THE DUTY OF LOYALTY, WHAT HAVE YOU,
5 THIS IS WHERE WE COME IN ALSO IN SPEEDEE OIL, AND THE
6 COURT'S STATEMENT, HEY, WE DON'T APPLY THINGS LITERALLY,
7 BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT LOOKS GOOD TO THE PUBLIC IF YOU
8 HAVE A PARTY CONSPICUOUSLY SIT ON SOMETHING FOR TEN
9 YEARS, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, AND THEN RAISE IT AS A
10 TACTICAL MATTER AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR. I THINK THAT IF
11 ANYTHING HERE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED BY DENYING
12 DISQUALIFICATION.
13 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
14 MR. BANKS: YOUR HONOR, LET ME RESPOND CERTAINLY
15 TO COUNSEL'S LEGAL ARGUMENTS. COUNSEL IS READING MUCH,
16 MUCH MORE INTO THE SPEEDEE OIL DECISION THAN IS ACTUALLY
17 THERE. SPEEDEE FOLLOWED THE ANALYSIS IN FLATT, AND
18 FLATT, OF COURSE, SET FORTH THE PER SE DISQUALIFICATION
19 RULE WITH ONE LIMITED EXCEPTION WHERE THERE ARE WRITTEN
20 INFORMED CONFLICT WAIVERS, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE HERE. AND
21 THE FLATT ANALYSIS, AGAIN, ENDORSED IN SPEEDEE HAS BEEN
22 FOLLOWED IN CASE AFTER CASE AFTER CASE IN MATTERS OF
23 CONCURRENT REPRESENTATION.
24 IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER CONFIDENTIAL
25 INFORMATION, IN FACT, WAS TRANSMITTED. IT IS PRESUMED
26 UNDER THE LAW TO HAVE BEEN TRANSMITTED. THAT MUCH IS
27 TRUE, AND IT'S LIKEWISE CLEAR IN FLATT. SO TRYING TO
28 TAKE THIS SITUATION AND APPLY THE EQUITABLE CONCERNS THAT
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 30
1 WOULD BE APPLIED IN A SUCCESSIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONFLICT
2 JUST DOESN'T FIT.
3 AND THE REALITY IS WE DO -- AND I'LL LET,
4 AGAIN, MR. MCELHANEY SPEAK TO THIS. WE DO HAVE CONCERNS
5 ABOUT ONGOING ISSUES IN THE WATERMASTER PROCESS.
6 AND, FINALLY, THE NOTION THAT THIS MOTION
7 WAS FILED FOR TACTICAL REASONS IS JUST HYPERBOLE. THERE
8 ARE NO TACTICS HERE THAT WE HAVE ADVANCED, AND THERE IS
9 NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO THAT EFFECT.
10 THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT AVEK IS REALLY
11 TIRED OF SEEING ITS FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL OPPOSITE IT IN
12 LITIGATIONS, PARTICULARLY AS -- I'M SORRY, OPPOSITE IT IN
13 -- ON ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN AND LIKELY WILL ARISE IN
14 THE WATERMASTER SCENARIO.
15 MR. MCELHANEY: IF I CAN JUST TAG IN, YOUR HONOR,
16 RESPONDING TO MR. DUNN'S COMMENT ABOUT THERE NOT BEING
17 ANY WATER RIGHT DISPUTES BETWEEN AVEK AND DISTRICT 40 AT
18 THIS TIME. AVEK FULLY SUPPORTS THE JUDGMENT. AVEK IS
19 PREPARED TO DEFEND THE JUDGMENT ON APPEAL. BUT POST
20 JUDGMENT THERE HAVE BEEN STARK CONFLICTS BETWEEN AVEK AND
21 DISTRICT 40. YOU HAD EARLIER THIS MORNING A GOOD EXAMPLE
22 OF EXACTLY THAT WITH -- WHERE A BB&K ATTORNEY WAS ARGUING
23 AND HAD ARGUED BY BRIEFS THAT THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIER
24 SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION OF THE
25 TWO LANDOWNER REPRESENTATIVES ON A WATERMASTER BOARD.
26 AVEK SUPPORTED THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE RULES WHICH
27 PROVIDE -- AND THE LANDOWNER POSITION IS THAT THE PUBLIC
28 WATER SUPPLIER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DO SO. SO THIS
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 31
1 IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CONFLICT IF THIS CONTINUES,
2 AND WE EXPECT IT WILL CONTINUE.
3 THE COURT: WELL, THAT SITUATION REALLY IS MORE IN
4 THE NATURE OF THE CONSECUTIVE REPRESENTATION ISSUE, ISN'T
5 IT, SINCE THEY DON'T REPRESENT YOU AT THE PRESENT TIME?
6 MR. BANKS: THE CONSECUTIVE IF YOU HAVE A
7 CONCURRENT CONFLICT, YOUR HONOR, THE FACT THAT THE CLIENT
8 DISCHARGED THE LAWYER DOESN'T MORPH THAT INTO A
9 CONSECUTIVE REPRESENTATION SCENARIO. IT STILL REMAINS A
10 CONCURRENT CONFLICT.
11 THE COURT: WELL, IT DOES, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
12 A CIRCUMSTANCE NOW THAT IS AN EQUIVALENT, I'M GOING TO
13 CALL IT A MORAL EQUIVALENT, IF YOU WILL, IF NOT A LEGAL
14 EQUIVALENT, OF A CONSECUTIVE REPRESENTATION SITUATION, IT
15 SEEMS TO ME. PARTIES CAN -- HAVE BEEN IN CONFLICT AT
16 EARLIER TIMES RESOLVED THEIR CONFLICTS AND THEN HAVE
17 SEPARATE COUNSEL, AND THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENED HERE
18 IN A SENSE. AND THE ISSUE THAT MR. MCELHANEY IS
19 DESCRIBING REALLY FALLS WITHIN, THIS SEEMS TO ME, THAT
20 TYPE OF A SITUATION.
21 THIS IS NOT AN EASY CASE. NOTWITHSTANDING
22 SOME OF THE LANGUAGE USED BY SOME COURTS, THERE IS A LOT
23 OF DICTA. I THINK JUSTICE MOSK'S POSITION WAS PRETTY
24 CLEAR, BUT HE WAS CONCURRING. HE WAS NOT TRULY STATING
25 THAT AS PART OF THE RATIO DECIDENDI IN THE CASE. SO, YOU
26 KNOW, I TAKE IT THAT HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW SOMETIMES.
27 SO WE'LL SEE.
28 IS THERE ANY FURTHER ARGUMENT FROM ANYBODY
Veritext Legal Solutions 866 299-5127
Page 32
1 THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON THIS ISSUE?
2
3
MR. BANKS: NONE FROM AVEK, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: WELL, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A WRITTEN
4 DECISION AND TRY TO EXPLAIN MY REASONING, AND YOU MAY
5 OBVIOUSLY DO WITH IT AS YOU WISH.
6 ANYTHING ELSE?
7
8
9
10
MR. MCELHANEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MR. BANKS: NO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
MR. COATES: NO, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: THERE WAS ALSO AN OBJECTION TO
11 MR. ARIKI'S DECLARATION.
12 MR. BANKS: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL -- WE WILL
13 STIPULATE TO THE RELIEF THAT DISTRICT 40 SOUGHT IN ITS
14 EX PARTE APPLICATION.
15
16
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. MCELHANEY: THERE WERE OTHER OBJECTIONS TO
17 MR. ARIKI'S DECLARATION.
18 THE COURT: THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE HEARSAY
19 NATURE OF SOME OF THOSE OBJECTIONS
20 MR. MCELHANEY: THANK YOU.
21 THE COURT: BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I
22 DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO MAKE EXPRESS
23 RULINGS ON THOSE OBJECTIONS. SO I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.
24
25
26
27
28
MR. MCELHANEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
(THE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.)
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 33
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 3 DEPARTMENT 222 HON. JACK KOMAR, JUDGE 4 5 COORDINATION PROCEEDING
SPECIAL TITLE (RULE 550(B)) 6
7
8
9
10
11
ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES
INCLUDED ACTIONS:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40 V. DIAMOND FARMING CO., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CASE NO. BC325201;
LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS 12 DISTRICT NO. 40 V. DIAMOND FARMING
CO., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 13 COUNTY OF KERN, CASE NO.
S-1500-CV254-348; 14
WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC. V. CITY 15 OF LANCASTER, DIAMOND FARMING CO.
V. CITY OF LANCASTER, DIAMOND 16 FARMING CO. V. PALMDALE WATER
DIST., SUPERIOR COURT OF 17 CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
CASE NOS. RIC353840, RIC344436, 18 RIC344668;
19 REBECCA LEE WILLIS V. LOS ANGELES, COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40,
20 ET AL., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
21 CASE NO. BC364533;
22 RICHARD WOOD V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS, DISTRICT NO. 40,
23 ET AL., SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
24 CASE NO. BC391869
25 26
JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4408
SANTA CLARA CASE NO. 1-05-CV-049053
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
27 I, SHAWNDA R. DORN, OFFICIAL REPORTER 28 PRO TEMPORE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 34
1 CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY
2 CERTIFY THAT I DID CORRECTLY REPORT THE PROCEEDINGS
3 CONTAINED HEREIN AND THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH
4 26, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE
5 PROCEEDINGS AND TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF THE
6 ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON DECEMBER 7, 2016.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.
SHAWNDA R. DORN, CSR NO. 11387, RPR, CCRR, CLR
OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
Veritext Legal Solutions 866299-5127
Page 35
BANKS & WATSON CASE NAME: ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES
2 COURT: Santa Clara County Superior Court
3
4
CASE NO: CGC-13-533134 (JCCP No. 4408)
PROOF OF SERVICE
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
6 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) ss. )
7
8
9
10
11
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 901 F Street, Suite 200, Sacramento, California 95814. My electronic address is epoma@bwfirm.com.
On February 2, 2017, I served a copy of:
ANTELOPE VALLEY EAST - KERN WATER AGENCY'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL
12 . on the interested parties in this action served in the following manner:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
( ./) BY ELECTRONIC FILING - I caused the document(s) listed above to be transmitted via Odyssey File & Serve to all parties appearing on the electronic services list for the Antelope Valley Groundwater matter; proof of electronic filing through Odyssey File & Serve is then· printed and maintained in our office. Electronic service is complete at the time of transmission.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 2,2017, at Sacramento, California. '
Esther Poma
{00081027.DOCX; I}
PROOF OF SERVICE