Water Replenishment Dist. So. Cal. v. City of Signal Hill CA2/1

Filed 10/31/13 Water Replenishment Dist. So. Cal. v. City of Signal Hill CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT B242071 OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. VC060496)

v.

CITY OF SIGNAL HILL,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Reversed with directions. Alston & Bird, Edward J. Casey, Neal P. Maguire and Lee J. Rosenberg for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aleshire & Wynder, Patricia J. Quilizapa and Brandon Dominic Ward for Defendant and Respondent.

___________

A trial court in a related action made an interim order that the provisions of article XIII D of the California Constitution invalidated a replenishment assessment (assessment) imposed on the City of Signal Hill by the Water Replenishment District of Southern California (District), and thus the City of Signal Hill was “entitled to mandamus relief commanding the [District] to vacate the [assessment] imposed by [the District] over the past four years.” (City of Cerritos et al. v. Water Replenishment District of Southern California (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BS128136) (Proposition 218 Lawsuit).) Proposition 218, known as the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, was approved by the California voters at the November 5, 1996 General Election, amending the Constitution by adding article XIII D. (See Ballot Pamph., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996) text of Prop. 218, p. 108 et seq.) Subsequent to the interim order in the Proposition 218 Lawsuit, the City of Signal Hill stopped paying the assessment but continued to produce groundwater. This interim order is not before us for review in this appeal. We are asked in this appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in denying the District’s application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City of Signal Hill from producing groundwater unless it pays the delinquent assessment. The District urges that pursuant to Water Code section 60339 the City of Signal Hill should be so enjoined because the “pay first, litigate later” doctrine enshrined in section 32 of article XIII of the California Constitution requires the City of Signal Hill to pay the assessment until it receives a final judgment on the Proposition 218 Lawsuit.1 We agree and conclude that the trial court erred in denying the District’s application for a preliminary injunction because section 60339 authorizes the trial court to grant an injunction against an operator of a water-producing facility from producing groundwater if it is delinquent in the payment of an assessment, and under the doctrine of “pay first, litigate later,” the City of Signal Hill must pay the assessment until there is a final judgment in its Proposition 218 Lawsuit. We reverse the order of the trial court denying the District’s application for a preliminary injunction and direct the court to enjoin the City of Signal Hill from