Rainey v. Nevada Irrigation District CA3

Filed 1/14/26 Rainey v. Nevada Irrigation District CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ----

MICHAEL RAINEY et al., C102948

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. CU19084309)

v.

NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

Defendant and Respondent.

Michael Rainey and Emerson Pachaud (collectively plaintiffs) sued the Nevada Irrigation District (District) for inverse condemnation, private nuisance, and dangerous condition of public property, seeking damages for landslides allegedly resulting from water leaking and/or seeping from an irrigation ditch. The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary adjudication as to Rainey’s nuisance and dangerous condition claims on statute of limitations grounds and bifurcated the trial into two phases: in the first phase, the trial court would conduct a bench trial addressing liability as to the

1

inverse condemnation claim; and, in the second phase, a jury would consider the question of inverse condemnation damages and Pachaud’s remaining claims. In the bench trial phase, the trial court found in favor of the District on inverse condemnation liability. The District then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the trial court’s finding that the District’s irrigation ditch did not cause or contribute to the landslide damage on plaintiffs’ properties was conclusive as to Pachaud’s remaining claims. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of the District. On appeal, Pachaud1 argues the trial court erred by granting the District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because the bifurcation order misleadingly or ambiguously stated that Pachaud’s nuisance and dangerous condition claims would be decided by a jury and the bench trial ruling thus was not binding as to those claims. (Citing Darbun Enterprises, Inc. v. San Fernando Community Hospital (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 399 (Darbun).) We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs have neighboring properties located downhill from an irrigation ditch maintained, managed, operated, and owned by the District. Plaintiffs sued the District for inverse condemnation, private nuisance, and dangerous condition of public property, generally alleging: the District’s irrigation ditch leaked water onto their properties; around the same time, subsurface water began seeping out of banks on their properties; the District attempted to fix the leak to no avail; water continues to leak/seep onto their properties; and the water has caused landslides on their land. The District filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, and a motion to bifurcate the trial. In December 2023, the trial court issued