Willis v. L.A. Cnty. Waterworks Dist. No. 40 (In re Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases)

• Decision Date: 26 May 2021
• Docket Number: F082766
• Parties: Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 3.3550(c)) ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES REBECCA LEE WILLIS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40 et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Coordination Proceeding Special Title (Rule 3.3550(c))ANTELOPE VALLEY GROUNDWATER CASES^*REBECCA LEE WILLIS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 40 et al., Defendants and Respondents.

F082766

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

May 26, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(JCCP No. 4408)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jack Komar, Judge.^†

Niddrie Addams Fuller Singh, David A. Niddrie, Victoria E. Fuller; The Kalfayan Law Firm, Ralph B. Kalfayan; The Katriel Law Firm, Roy A. Katriel; and Gregory L. James for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Mary Wickham, County Counsel, Warren R. Wellen, Deputy County Counsel; Best Best & Krieger, Eric L. Garner, Jeffrey V. Dunn, Wendy Y. Wang; Olivarez Madruga Lemieux O'Neill, Wayne K. Lemieux, W. Keith Lemieux; Murphy & Evertz, Douglas J. Evertz; Lagerlof, and Thomas S. Bunn III for Defendants and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

Appellants (Willis or the Willis Class) appeal from an order denying a motion for an award of attorney fees and costs in the coordination proceeding known as the Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases (AVGC). Willis sought over $2.2 million from respondents (the Public Water Suppliers or PWS) for work performed in the AVGC from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2015. However, in a settlement reached between the parties in 2010 and incorporated into a judgment in 2011, Willis had agreed to "not seek any attorneys' fees and/or costs from [the PWS]" except under certain circumstances.

The parties negotiated specific prerequisites for the filing of any motion by Willis for the recovery of postsettlement fees and costs from the Public Water Suppliers. Respondents correctly argue that none of the prerequisite conditions existed. We therefore affirm the challenged order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This court recently decided a related matter, Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 992 (Antelope Valley III). We incorporate by reference the factual and procedural background set forth therein, which is partially repeated and supplemented here to frame the issues in this appeal.

Overview

The AVGC concern the existence and priority of water rights in the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin (the basin or aquifer). The basin spans more than 1,000square miles across parts of southeastern Kern County and northeastern Los Angeles County. A large portion of the overlying land is owned by the federal government, but there are thousands of private citizens and entities who also own real property in the area.

The Public Water Suppliers are a group of public agencies and special districts that pump groundwater from the basin and supply water to customers throughout the arid region. The Willis Class comprises nongovernmental landowners who had not pumped groundwater from the basin but wished to protect whatever rights they had to do so in the future. There are many additional AVGC litigants, but they are not directly involved in the dispute over Willis's claimed entitlement to fees and costs.

Presettlement Litigation (1999-2010)

The earliest lawsuits concerning rights to the subject groundwater commenced in 1999 and 2000. In 2004, respondent Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40 (District 40) filed an action seeking (1) a comprehensive determination of the rights of thousands of individuals, companies, public water suppliers, public agencies, and the federal government to extract water from the basin and (2) a physical solution to alleviate alleged overdraft conditions and protect the basin's groundwater supply. District 40 sought to establish that it and other public water suppliers had prescriptively acquired groundwater rights superior to those of nongovernmental landowners.

In 2005, the Judicial Council coordinated the various actions, which collectively became known as the AVGC. In 2006, the trial court issued an order declaring the jurisdictional boundaries of the aquifer, i.e., the Antelope Valley Adjudication Area (AVAA). The first of six phases of trial proceedings (Phases 1-6) had been devoted to establishing those boundaries, which was essential to determining the necessary parties to any global adjudication of rights to the basin's groundwater.

In 2007, the Public Water Suppliers filed a class action cross-complaint in the AVGC seeking essentially the same relief as requested in District 40's original pleading. During the same year, Willis filed a class action complaint against the Public WaterSuppliers. The Willis Class sought to establish that their rights to the present and future overlying uses of the groundwater were superior to those of the PWS.

In 2008, Phase 2 commenced to establish the hydrologic nature of the aquifer within the boundaries of the AVAA. The issue was whether there were any distinct groundwater subbasins that did not have hydrologic connection to other parts of the aquifer. The trial court found all areas of the AVAA were sufficiently hydrologically connected to constitute a single aquifer for purposes of the coordinated proceedings.

In 2009, the PWS moved to transfer and consolidate all pending AVGC actions and cross actions. The motion was granted in early 2010. The consolidation order stated, in relevant part: "If the basin is in overdraft (a fact still to be established), the Court ... would of necessity have to look at the totality of pumping by all parties, evaluate the rights of all parties who are producing water from the aquifer, determine whether injunctive relief [is] required, and determine what solution equity and statutory law require[s] (including a potential physical solution).... [¶] ... [¶] ... Consolidation of the water rights claims will result in a comprehensive adjudication and a judgment that will affect all the parties." The parties were authorized to settle "any or all claims between or among them[selves], as long as any such settlement expressly provide[d] for the Court to retain jurisdiction over the settling parties for purposes of entering a judgment resolving all claims to the rights to withdraw groundwater from the [basin] as well as the creation of a physical solution if [necessary]."

The Settlement Agreement (2010-2011)

In July 2010, Willis and the PWS reached a comprehensive settlement of their inter se disputes. The written agreement acknowledged the PWS claimed to have prescriptively acquired rights to a substantial percentage of the basin's native safe yield, while the Willis Class had asserted the PWS had no prescriptive rights against them. The PWS maintained the basin had a native safe yield of 82,300 acre-feet per year (afy) and a total safe yield of 110,500 afy, but the parties agreed to be bound by the trial court'sfuture determination of those amounts. The parties also acknowledged the United States' entitlement to a portion of the native safe yield (the Federal Reserved Right), and they agreed to be bound by the court's future determination of that amount.¹

The term "Federally Adjusted Native Safe Yield" was used to refer to the basin's native safe yield "less the prior year's production of water by the United States (not to exceed the Federal Reserved Right)." Willis agreed the PWS had a right to collectively "produce up to 15% of the [b]asin's Federally Adjusted Native Safe Yield free of any Replacement Assessment." The PWS agreed Willis had an "Overlying Right to a correlative share of 85% of the Federally Adjusted Native Safe Yield for reasonable and beneficial uses on their overlying land free of any Replacement Assessment."²

The PWS agreed to "not take any positions or enter into any agreements that are inconsistent with the exercise of the Willis Class Members' Overlying Right to produce and use their correlative share of 85% of the [b]asin's Federally Adjusted Native Safe Yield." However, the terms of the settlement did not allocate a specific quantity of water or percentage of the Federally Adjusted Native Safe Yield to Willis. Willis acknowledged other AVGC litigants might have correlative rights to the Federally Adjusted Native Safe Yield, and the parties' definition of "Correlative Rights"recognized "that, if the supply of water is insufficient for all reasonable and beneficial needs, [all holders of Overlying Rights are] entitled to a fair and just proportion of the [available] water."

The term "Physical Solution" was defined as "a mechanism that comprehensively resolves the competing claims to the [b]asin's water and provides for the management of the [b]asin." Both parties agreed "to be part of such a Physical Solution to the extent it is consistent with the terms of [the settlement agreement]," and to "cooperate and coordinate their efforts in any ... trial or hearing so as to obtain entry of judgment consistent with the terms of [the settlement agreement]." Those provisions "[did] not require Willis Class counsel to participate in any such trial or render any efforts absent written agreement of [the PWS] to compensate them for such efforts," nor did they preclude the Public Water Suppliers "from participating in any further proceedings that may affect their rights."

The parties negotiated a provision regarding attorney fees and costs. The PWS acknowledged "that Willis Class counsel intend[ed] to seek an award of their fees and costs" incurred from Willis's earliest involvement in the AVGC through a future date when the trial court entered a final judgment approving the settlement. It was noted the PWS would "likely oppose the motion for fees and costs."

The provision further stated: "Willis Class Counsel agree that they will not seek any attorneys'...