1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP
Frederic A. Fudacz, State Bar No. 50546
Henry S. Weinstock, State Bar No. 89765
Alfred E. Smith, State Bar No. 186257
445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-7800
Facsimile: (213) 612-7801
GOVT. AGENCY – NO FILING
FEE (GOVT. CODE § 6103)
Attorneys for Defendants City of Arroyo Grande,
City of Grover Beach, City of Pismo Beach,
Oceano Community Services District
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11
12
SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a public
entity,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
CITY OF SANTA MARIA, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS.
I.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SANTA MARIA GROUNDWATER LITIGATION,
LEAD CASE No. CV 770214 (Consolidated with
CV 784900, 784921, 784926, 785509, 785511,
785515, 785522, 785936, 786971, 787150, 787151,
787152, 990738, 990739)
NORTHERN CITIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER TO GLAD-A-WAY GARDENS’
CROSS-COMPLAINT
Hearing Date: May 12, 2000
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 17 – Judge Conrad L. Rushing
Trial Date: October 10, 2000
INTRODUCTION.
19
In its opposition to the Northern Cities’ demurrer, Glad-A-Way contends the demurrer should
20
not be sustained because there will be a trial on the Basin boundaries. But before there can be a trial,
21
there must be a proper pleading. Second, the function of a demurrer is to determine issues of law, not
22
fact. Next, Glad-A-Way argues it has a right to absolute ownership of groundwater storage space
23
beneath its property. This contention is directly inconsistent with established case law. Finally, Glad-A-
24
Way ignores prior rulings of the court sustaining demurrers to the seventh cause of action for inverse
25
condemnation.
26
II.
27
28
GLAD-A-WAY FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE BASIN IN ITS COMPLAINT.
Glad-A-Way contends the demurrer should not be sustained because there will be a trial on the
Basin boundaries. However, before there can be a trial, there must be a proper pleading that meets
106729444
-1-
1
statutory requirements, for example, the requirement to identify the groundwater Basin at issue in this
2
case. To avoid repetition, the Northern Cities’ incorporate their reply to the opposition of the
3
Landowner Group Parties, filed concurrently herewith, which sets forth the quiet title statutory
4
requirements for a description of the Basin.
5
Further, the demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. A demurrer raises defects of
6
law, not fact, in the complaint. C.C.P. § 430.10, Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591. As stated
7
in Ferraris v. Levy (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 408, “A demurrer calls only for the determination of an
8
issue of law.” (Id. at 412; emphasis added).
9
III.
GLAD-A-WAY’S FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION FOR OWNERSHIP OF
10
GROUNDWATER STORAGE SPACE SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
11
To avoid repetition, the Northern Cities incorporate as though fully set forth herein, the reply
12
brief filed by the County of San Luis Obispo. For the reasons stated therein, Glad-A-Way cannot state
13
facts sufficient to maintain its fourth and fifth causes of action.
14
IV.
THE DEMURRER TO THE INVERSE CONDEMNATION CLAIM HAS PREVIOUSLY
15
BEEN SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
16
Glad-A-Way incorrectly argues that prior rulings did not sustain demurrers to substantively
17
identical inverse condemnation claims. Glad-A-Way argues that the prior rulings were sustained only
18
with regard to the date as to which a quiet title determination is to be made. (Opposition, p.7, lines 19-
19
22). However, by order of the Court dated August 2, 1999, the Court sustained prior demurrers to
20
identical inverse condemnation claims without leave to amend. The court stated:
21
“The City of Santa Maria’s Demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action to
the First Amended Cross-Complaint of Richard E. Adams, et al., is
SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Cross-Complainants fail
to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for inverse condemnation.
Specifically, cross-complainants seek compensation via inverse
condemnation should it be found that cross-defendants have taken their
groundwater rights by prescription. However, once a party has established
a legal right to title, possession, or use of another’s property through
prescription, compensation for said right is no longer required. (See e.g.
Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1990) 220
Cal.App.3d 1602, 1609.) This rule applies equally where the acquiring
party is a public entity. ‘In view of the determination made hereinabove
with respect to the acquisition by the city of an easement by prescription,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
106729444
-2-
it is unnecessary to discuss the subject of inverse condemnation.’ Reinsch
v. City of Los Angeles (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 737, 748.”
1
2
The same principles apply to the same inverse condemnation claim by Glad-A-Way. Therefore,
3
Glad-A-Way cannot maintain its cause of action for inverse condemnation.
4
V.
5
6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Northern Cities’ demurrer to the first, fourth, fifth and seventh
causes of action of the Glad-A-Way Cross-Complaint should be sustained without leave to amend.
7
8
DATED: May 5, 2000
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP
9
10
By: __________________________________________
Alfred E. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant Cities of Arroyo Grande, Pismo
Beach, Grover Beach and Oceano Community Services District
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
106729444
-3-