Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al., v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, et al.

Code Sec. 1305.1.) The Court also notes that the charges referenced on the face of the Bail Bond appear to be misdemeanors rather than felonies. (Sum. Judg. on Bail Bond Forfeiture, March 20, 2026, attach.) For misdemeanor charges not involving domestic violence or driving under the influence, Singelton was permitted to "appear by counsel only." (Pen. Code, Sec. 977, subd. (a).) "Moreover, 'the Court [may] rely upon the representation of counsel that the accused is knowingly absent from the proceedings. [Citation.]

In the absence of a statutory requirement that the attorney's authority be evidenced by a writing, it is always presumed that an attorney appearing and acting for a party has authority to do so. [Citation.]" (People v. International Fidelity Ins. Co. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1562, italics in original text.) SBB does not address the apparent misdemeanor charges referenced in the Bail Bond and Singleton's ability to appear by counsel as to those charges regardless of any waiver. (See Pen. Code, Sec. 977, subd. (a).)

For all these reasons, SBB did not carry its burden. (8) SBB Did Not Carry Its Burden to Establish Non-Compliance with Penal Code Sections 1305 and 1305.1 at the June 6 Hearing Similarly, SBB does not establish that the Court failed to make sufficient factual findings of good cause to continue the June 6 Hearing and the related Bail Bond obligations. The Court's minutes for the June 6 Hearing indicate that the Court made a finding of good cause to continue the June 6 Hearing and Bail Bond obligations. (Motion, Ex.

A.) The presumption of regularity of the Court's official duties applies. (Evid. Code, Sec. 664.) SBB has the burden to demonstrate that the discussion at the June 6 Hearing was insufficient to comply with Penal Code sections 1305 and 1305.1, including any factual findings of good cause. (Pen. Code, Sec.Sec. 1305, 1305.1; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (d); Evid. Code, Sec. 500; Safety National, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 974.) SBB did not meet its burden. The records submitted by SBB do not establish that the Judgment is void or that the Court lacked jurisdiction to forfeit the Bail Bond at the subsequent January 15 Hearing. (9) SBB Did Not Carry Its Burden to Establish Non-Compliance with Penal Code Section 1305 at the January 15 Hearing SBB argues that the Court did not properly declare forfeiture of the Bail Bond at the January 15 Hearing.

However, the Court's minutes pertaining to the January 15 Hearing indicate a finding that the Bail Bond was forfeited. (Sum. Judg. on Bail Bond Forfeiture, March 20, 2026, attach; Motion, Ex. C.) SBB did not submit evidence of what was discussed on the record at the January 15 Hearing. The presumption of regularity of the Court's official duties applies. (Evid. Code, Sec. 664.) SBB did not carry its burden to establish the Court failed to make a compliant declaration at the June 15 Hearing. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (d); Evid. Code, Sec. 500; Safety National, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 974.) For all these reasons, the Court finds that SBB failed to establish that the Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the Judgment or that the Judgment is otherwise void. The Court will deny SBB's motion to set aside the Judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (d).) The motion does not seek any other relief. (Motion, p. 2, ll. 1-23.) (10) Request for Attorney Fees by the County "The district attorney, county counsel, or applicable prosecuting agency, as the case may be, shall recover, out of the forfeited bail money, the costs and attorney's fees incurred in successfully opposing a motion to vacate the forfeiture and in collecting on the summary judgment prior to the division of the forfeited bail money between the cities and counties in accordance with Section 1463.001." (Pen.

Code, Sec. 1305.3.) Attorney fees are typically addressed by a noticed motion. "A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial Court--including attorney's fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial Court--must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case or under rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)(1).)

The County may file a motion for attorney fees and provide SBB and Lexington notice and an opportunity to be heard on these issues. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 1005, 1005.5.)

Tentative Ruling: Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al., v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, et al.

Tentative Ruling: Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition, et al., v. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/27/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion of Eco-Farm, LLC, for Leave to Intervene Tentative Ruling For Plaintiffs Las Posas Basin Water Rights Coalition, et al.: Meredith E. Nikkel, Brian E. Hamilton, Jake R. Voorhees, Downey Brand LLP For Moving Party Eco-Farm, LLC: Michael L. Tidus, Gregory R. Regier, Jackson Tidus RULING For the reasons as set forth herein, the motion of Eco-Farm, LLC, for leave to intervene is granted. Eco-Farm, LLC, shall file and serve its complaint in intervention, in substantially the same form as attached the motion, on or before June 10, 2026. Upon filing, the complaint is deemed answered by all parties to this action, with all material allegations denied and all applicable affirmative defenses asserted.

Background

On July 10, 2023, the Court entered final judgment (the Judgment) in this comprehensive groundwater adjudication. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and a petition for review is now pending before the California Supreme Court. (Las Posas Valley Water Rights Coalition v. Ventura County Waterworks Dist. No. 1 (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1170, petn. for review pending, petn. filed Apr. 14, 2026.) On September 26, 2024, several parties identifying themselves as "Omitted Rights Holders" filed a motion to intervene in this action.

These parties asserted, among other things, that their notice of this action was legally insufficient. On December 18, 2024, the Court granted the motion of these parties to intervene to assert, among other things, their claims regarding notice. On April 10, 2025, following a two-day evidentiary hearing, the Court issued its tentative statement of decision finding, among other things, the notice provided to the Omitted Rights Holders legally sufficient and against the Omitted Rights Holders on their substantive claims to modify the comprehensive groundwater adjudication judgment.

On June 2, 2025, the Court entered its judgment on its decision. This judgment is now pending appeal. On March 18, 2026, Eco-Farm, LLC, (Eco-Farm) filed its motion to intervene in this action. Eco-Farm argues, among other things, that the notice it was provided was legally insufficient. The motion is opposed by Plaintiffs. On May 15, 2026, the Court held a case management conference in this matter. After a discussion was held as to whether hearing on the motion to intervene should be stayed pending disposition of the appeal as to the judgment against the Omitted Rights Holders, the Court determined to keep the motion on calendar.

Analysis

Eco-Farm makes this motion to intervene pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 387 and 837. "An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by doing any of the following: "(1) Joining a Plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint. "(2) Uniting with a Defendant in resisting the claims of a Plaintiff. "(3) Demanding anything adverse to both a Plaintiff and a Defendant." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 387, subd. (b).) "A nonparty shall petition the Court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition

shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 387, subd. (c).) "(1) The Court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: "(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. "(B) The person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties. "(2) The Court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 387, subd. (d).) "A groundwater sustainability agency for the basin or a portion of the basin may intervene in a comprehensive adjudication conducted pursuant to this chapter." Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 837, subd. (a).) "The Court shall allow any person to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication conducted pursuant to this chapter upon an ex parte application that demonstrates that the person holds fee simple ownership in a parcel in the basin, or extracts or stores water in the basin.

A person filing an ex parte application pursuant to this subdivision shall give notice to the Plaintiff consistent with the California Rules of Court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 837, subd. (c).) "A person may apply to intervene in a comprehensive adjudication conducted pursuant to this chapter pursuant to Section 387." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 837, subd. (d).) Eco-Farm presents evidence that it is an owner of fee simple title to real property overlaying the Los Posas Valley Groundwater Basin on which property water is extracted for agricultural use. (Estiri & Fiuzat decl., P.P. 1, 3.)

There is no factual dispute as to this issue presented in this motion. Instead, Eco-Farm's motion and Plaintiffs' opposition focus instead upon the timeliness of the motion because it is post-judgment and upon Eco-Farm's asserted lack of effective notice of this action. On the issue of timeliness, there are two issues: whether the request is untimely because a judgment on the merits of the adjudication has been issued; and whether the request is untimely because of issues of notice and delay. Section 837 does not address timing of the application to intervene.

Section 387, subdivision (d), requires a timely application even where there is an unconditional right to intervene. Section 837's procedures must be interpreted consistently with the statutory directives of comprehensive groundwater adjudications. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 830, subd. (b).) Other provisions applicable to civil action apply to this action where they are not conflicting. (Id., subd. (c).) "The fact that section 387 allows for a 'timely' application means that intervention after a judgment is possible." (Hernandez v.

Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 267.) The Court concludes that the fact that the application is made after judgment is not an impediment to intervention here. "The Court shall have continuing jurisdiction to modify or amend a final judgment in a comprehensive adjudication in response to new information, changed circumstances, the interests of justice, or to ensure that the criteria of subdivision (a) of Section 850 are met." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 852.) Moreover, the judgment entered in this action itself permits amendment by landowners and other parties claiming rights in the Basin. (Judgment, Sec. 9.4.) " 'Timeliness [under section 387] is determined by the totality of the circumstances facing would-be intervenors, with a focus on three primary factors: "(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for the delay." ' [Citation.] ' "[D]elay in itself does not make a request for intervention untimely." ' [Citation.]

When mandatory intervention 'is sought, because "the would-be intervenor may be seriously harmed if intervention is denied, Courts should be reluctant to dismiss such a request for intervention as untimely, even though they might deny the request if the intervention were merely permissive." ' [Citation.]" (Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Lacy (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 560, 574 (Crestwood).)

"Although the totality of the circumstances should be considered, 'prejudice to existing parties is "the most important consideration in deciding whether a motion for intervention is timely." ' [Citation.] This does not, however, include prejudice that would result from allowing intervention. [Citation.] Rather, only the ' "prejudice caused by the movant's delay" ' should be considered. [Citation.] Indeed, California Courts have found intervention to be timely based solely on the absence of such prejudice. [Citations.]" (Crestwood, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 574-575.)

The stage of the proceeding issue is not as significant an issue in this case as it may be in most cases. The implementation of the judgment is expected to be a continuing matter, subject to modification as appropriate under section 852. Regardless of whether Eco-Farm's present circumstances warrant any modification to the judgment, Eco-Farm has a continuing interest in this matter as reflected in section 837. This factor weighs in favor of finding timeliness. The issues of prejudice and delay are wholly wrapped in the merits of Eco-Farm's claim that it was not given legally sufficient notice and its delay as based upon the lack of such notice.

Granting the motion to intervene merely provides Eco-Farm standing to assert its claims. Denying the motion to intervene would effectively determine the claims on their merits. Under the totality of the circumstances here, particularly where Eco-Farm has a continuing interest in the implementation of the judgment, the better practice is to permit Eco-Farm to intervene and then to address Eco-Farm's notice claims by a procedurally appropriate vehicle. The motion to intervene will therefore be granted.

By granting the motion, the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Eco-Farm's claims.