Westlands Water Dist. Distribution Dist. No. 2 v. All Persons Interested CA5

Filed 8/28/23 Westlands Water Dist. Distribution Dist. No. 2 v. All Persons Interested CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT
DISTRIBUTION DISTRICT NO. 2, F084291
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20CECG01012)
v.
OPINION
ALL PERSONS INTERESTED, etc., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A.
Gaab, Judge.
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Allison E. Burns and Douglas S. Brown for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Office of Roger B. Moore, Roger B. Moore; Law Office of Adam Keats and
Adam Keats for Defendants and Respondents California Water Impact Network,
AquAlliance, and Planning and Conservation League.
Mohan Harris Ruiz and S. Dean Ruiz for Defendant and Respondent Central Delta
Water Agency.
*Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Stephanie L. Clarke and
Jamey M.B. Volker for Defendants and Respondents North Coast Rivers Alliance,
Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for
Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San
Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Westlands Water District Distribution District No. 2 (Westlands DD #2)
seeks review of a motion ruling but concedes the appeal is likely premature.
Respondents submit, more assertively, that the matter concerns a nonappealable order.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Westlands DD #2, a public agency formed pursuant to Water Code section 36460,
filed the underlying validation action pursuant to, inter alia, Code of Civil Procedure
section 860 et seq. The complaint sought a judicial decree regarding the validity of a
contract between Westlands DD #2 and the federal government. Service of the complaint
and summons upon “[a]ll persons interested in this matter” was accomplished by
publication. Two groups of defendants, which included California Water Impact
Network (CWIN) and North Coast Rivers Alliance (NCRA), joined the action by filing
verified answers. A third verified answer was filed by the Central Delta Water Agency.1
In September 2021, Westlands DD #2 filed a motion for entry of a validation
judgment in its favor. Respondents filed opposition papers, and the Fresno Superior
Court tentatively ruled to deny the motion because the contract in question was materially
1Two respondents’ briefs have been filed in this appeal. The first was jointly submitted
by NCRA, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute For
Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco
Crab Boat Owners Association. The second was jointly submitted by CWIN, AquAlliance,
Planning and Conservation League, and the Central Delta Water Agency. Unless otherwise
specified, these parties are collectively referred to as respondents.
2.
incomplete. On November 2, 2021, the motion was argued and taken under submission.
On November 5, 2021, the superior court issued a minute order adopting its tentative
ruling.
In April 2022, Westlands DD #2 asked the superior court to vacate or continue a
then pending trial date of May 9, 2022. Documents filed in support of the request
showed the parties agreed that a trial was unnecessary in light of the November 2021
motion ruling. However, Westlands DD #2 was unwilling to stipulate to a proposed
judgment drafted by respondents. Respondents filed their own request for a status
conference and submitted a proposed judgment of dismissal to the superior court. In
response, the superior court vacated the trial date and scheduled a case management
conference (CMC) for early June.
On May 3, 2022, Westlands DD #2 filed a notice of appeal. On August 16, 2022,
it filed a motion in this court to “stay all proceedings and briefing in this appeal, pending
the entry of final judgment in the trial court.” The moving papers explained that it filed
the notice of appeal “[o]ut of an abundance of caution, and in order to preserve its
appellate rights.” Westlands DD #2 further stated its intention to “file a second notice of
appeal” if and when the superior court entered a final judgment. In September 2022, the
motion to stay was denied.
The parties proceeded to brief the appeal, and the reply brief was filed in May of
this year. In its opening brief, Westlands DD #2 cursorily remarked “that the better
argument is that the [order denying its motion for a validation judgment] is not a final
judgment or otherwise appealable.” In respondents’ brief filed by CWIN, et al., they
wrote, “This appeal is premature as the trial court’s denial of [Westlands DD #2’s]
Motion for Entry of Validation Judgment did not constitute a judgment or other
appealable order under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1.” Nevertheless, they went
on to argue the merits of the appeal. North Coast Rivers Alliance, et al., did not address
the issue in their respondents’ brief. None of the parties moved to dismiss the appeal.
3.
Meanwhile, the CMC scheduled for June 2022 was continued but eventually held
on December 22, 2022. By that time, respondents had filed a motion with the superior
court for “an [o]rder setting hearing for any party to show cause why [the] matter should
not be dismissed ….” Westlands DD #2 filed an opposition claiming there was no legal
basis for the motion. However, in the event the superior court were to consider it,
Westlands DD #2 argued “it should exercise its inherent powers to sua sponte reconsider
its November 5, 2021, Minute Order, find it was wrongly decided, and based thereon
deny [the] motion.” Respondents’ motion was ultimately denied without prejudice.
On July 31, 2023, this court requested supplemental briefing on the issue of
appealability. In their responses, the parties confirmed the case was still active in the
Fresno Superior Court. Respondents argued dismissal was required for lack of an
appealable order. Westlands DD #2 again stated, “[T]he better argument is that [the
challenged order] is a nonappealable order.”
DISCUSSION
“The existence of an appealable judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an
appeal. A reviewing court must raise the issue on its own initiative whenever a doubt
exists as to whether the trial court has entered a final judgment or other order or judgment
made appealable by Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1.” (Jennings v. Marralle
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126.) “Section 904.1, which codifies the general list of appealable
judgments and orders, also effectively codifies the common law one-final-judgment rule.
Under this rule, an appeal lies only from a final judgment that terminates the trial court
proceedings by completely disposing of the matter in controversy.” (Walton v. Mueller
(2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161, 172, fn. 9.) “[M]ost interlocutory orders are not
appealable.” (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 754; see Griset v. Fair
Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696 [“A trial court’s order is appealable
when it is made so by statute”].)
4.
Here, the challenged ruling is not appealable unless it constitutes a final judgment.
(See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 577, 904.1, subd. (a).) “‘As a general test, which must be
adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where
no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance
with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final.’” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices
Com., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 698.) Although the motion for a validation judgment was
denied on the merits, and nothing seems to indicate the superior court will reconsider its
ruling sua sponte, the record does not explain why the superior court has yet to enter a
judgment of dismissal or judgment in favor of respondents. The superior court could
have signed respondents’ proposed judgment before the notice of appeal was filed, but it
did not. We thus decline to construe the minute order as a final judgment. (See
Kinoshita v. Horio (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 959, 967 [“Until a final judgment is rendered
the trial court may completely obviate an appeal by altering the rulings from which an
appeal would otherwise have been taken”].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we order
the matter be removed from this court’s September 2023 oral argument calendar, and all
pending requests for judicial notice are denied as moot. The parties shall bear their own
appellate costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
5.