1 BRYAN CAVE LLP
Sheldon Eisenberg, California Bar No. 100626
2 Jennifer A. Jackson, California Bar No. 192998
120 Broadway, Suite 300
3 Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576-2100
4 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
5 Attorneys For Cross-Defendant
UNITED FOODS, INC.
6
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
11
SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER
12 CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a public
entity,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
CITY OF SANTA MARIA, et al.,
16
Defendant.
17
CITY OF SANTA MARIA, a municipal
18 corporation,
19
Cross-Complainant,
20
Case No. CV 770214
ANSWER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT
UNITED FOODS, INC. TO RURAL
WATER COMPANY’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT
vs.
21 SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, et al.,
22
Cross-Defendants.
23
24 RURAL WATER COMPANY,
25
Cross-Complainant,
26
vs.
27 SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER
28
455585
UNITED FOODS’ ANSWER TO RWC’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT
1
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, et al.,
Cross-Defendants.
2
3 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS.
4
Cross-defendant United Foods, Inc. (“United Foods”), on behalf of itself alone and
5
6
7
8
for no other cross-defendants in this action, answers the unverified cross-complaint of
defendant and cross-complainant Rural Water Company (“RWC”) and admits, denies and
alleges as follows:
Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, United
9
10
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
11
12
Foods denies generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in RWC’s
cross-complaint. United Foods further denies that RWC is entitled to any legal relief of
any kind.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
13
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14
(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)
15
1.
16
17
therein, states a claim upon which relief can be granted against United Foods.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18
(PARAMOUNT OVERLYING RIGHTS)
19
2.
20
21
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(SELF-HELP)
23
3.
24
26
27
28
United Foods is an overlyer of the groundwater basin at issue, and all water
withdrawn by United Foods from said basin has been put to a beneficial overlying use.
22
25
Neither the cross-complaint, nor any purported cause of action alleged
RWC is not entitled to the relief requested in the cross-complaint in that, by
virtue of the doctrine of self-help, United Foods has preserved its paramount overlying
rights to extract groundwater from the basin over which its property lies, by continuing,
during all times relevant hereto, to extract and put to reasonable and beneficial use on its
overlying properties water from said basin.
455585
2
UNITED FOODS’ ANSWER TO RWC’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT
1
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(NO OVERDRAFT)
4.
3
United Foods is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the
4 groundwater basin at issue is not in a state of overdraft and the amounts withdrawn
5 therefrom have not exceeded adjusted safe yield (plus any temporary surplus). As a result,
6 any purported adverse use by RWC has not deprived United Foods of water to which it is
7 entitled, and RWC’s prescriptive claim is without merit.
8
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9
(EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT)
5.
10
In the event that it were determined that a reduction in water use were
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
11 required, as between United Foods and RWC, a true equitable apportionment of water
12 would not reduce or limit United Foods’ current use.
13
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14
(INFERIOR RIGHTS)
6.
15
To the extent, if any, that an overdraft of the groundwater basin at issue
16 exists, United Foods is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that some or all of
17 said overdraft is the result of withdrawals made by individuals and entities other than
18 United Foods, including, but not limited to, withdrawals made by appropriators and
19 withdrawals made by those with overlying rights for non-overlying purposes or in amounts
20 in excess of the reasonable needs of said overlyers.
21
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22
(NO ADVERSE ACTION)
7.
23
United Foods is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the
24 purported adverse actions of RWC allegedly resulting in prescriptive water rights were
25 done with the permission of United Foods.
26
//
27
//
28
//
455585
3
UNITED FOODS’ ANSWER TO RWC’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT
1
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(PHYSICAL SOLUTION)
8.
3
In the event a physical solution is ordered or some form of declaratory relief
4 is granted, the prior and paramount nature of United Foods’ own overlying and/or
5 prescriptive water rights must be recognized and cannot be eliminated.
6
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
(WASTE)
9.
8
United Foods is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that RWC’s
9 use of water is unreasonable and constitutes waste. For example, United Foods is
10 informed and believes and on that basis alleges that RWC has not implemented reasonable
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
11 and available conservation measures.
12
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
(UNCLEAN HANDS)
10.
14
Each and every cause of action contained in the cross-complaint is barred by
15 the doctrine of unclean hands. For example, RWC is guilty of unclean hands because it
16 seeks to restrict the pumping and use of water by others but not its own pumping and/or
17 use of water.
18
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(PUBLIC AGENCY DISCRETION)
11.
20
Each and every cause of action contained in the cross-complaint is barred
21 because it improperly seeks to control the exercise of discretion of various public agencies
22 and improperly seeks to compel the exercise of discretion in a particular manner.
23
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(WAIVER/ESTOPPEL)
12.
25
Each and every cause of action contained in the cross-complaint is barred by
26 the doctrine of waiver/estoppel by virtue of RWC’s acts and omissions.
27
//
28
//
455585
4
UNITED FOODS’ ANSWER TO RWC’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT
1
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)
13.
3
Each and every cause of action contained in the cross-complaint is barred by
4 the applicable statute of limitations, including, but not limited to, the provisions of
5 California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 318, 321, 338 and 343, and each and every
6 subsection therein.
7
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8
(LACHES)
14.
9
Each and every cause of action contained in the cross-complaint is barred by
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
10 the doctrine of laches.
11
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(INDISPENSABLE PARTIES)
15.
13
The cross-complaint is defective because it fails to name indispensable
14 parties in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 389(a).
15
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16
(STANDING)
16.
17
RWC lacks standing to assert the causes of action set forth in the cross-
18 complaint.
19
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(NO REASONABLE AND BENEFICIAL USE)
17.
21
United Foods is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each and
22 every cause of action contained in the cross-complaint is barred because RWC’s method of
23 water storage and/or use is not reasonable and beneficial in accordance with California
24 Constitution, Article 10, Section 2 and California Water Code Section 105.
25
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26
(RIPENESS)
18.
27
Each and every cause of action contained in the cross-complaint is barred
28 because RWC’s claims are not ripe for adjudication.
455585
5
UNITED FOODS’ ANSWER TO RWC’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT
1
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2
(ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDIES)
19.
3
To the extent that RWC seeks injunctive or other equitable relief against
4 United Foods, RWC has adequate legal remedies for its purported injuries, if any, resulting
5 from the alleged actual or threatened conduct of United Foods.
6
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7
(RATIFICATION)
20.
8
RWC is barred from maintaining this action because it has previously
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
9 ratified United Foods’ course of action of which RWC now complains.
10
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11
(UNCERTAINTY OF CROSS-COMPLAINT)
21.
12
The cross-complaint is defective and uncertain because, among other things:
13 the legal descriptions of the property as to which RWC claims to have acquired
14 prescriptive rights are not set out in the cross-complaint, and it cannot be ascertained from
15 the cross-complaint against which property RWC claims to have acquired prescriptive
16 rights; it cannot be ascertained from the cross-complaint the nature of the water rights that
17 RWC is claiming for itself and the nature of the water rights that RWC claims that United
18 Foods is asserting; and the causes of action contained in the cross-complaint fail to
19 specifically identify the party or parties to whom they are directed.
20
WHEREFORE, United Foods prays as follows:
21
1.
That RWC take nothing by virtue of its cross-complaint and that judgment be
22 entered in favor of United Foods;
2.
23
That United Foods be awarded its costs of suit and attorney’s fees incurred in
24 defense of this action; and
25
3.
26
//
27
//
28
//
455585
For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
6
UNITED FOODS’ ANSWER TO RWC’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 Dated: February 12, 2016
BRYAN CAVE LLP
Sheldon Eisenberg
Jennifer A. Jackson
2
3
4
By: /s/ Jennifer A. Jackson
5
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
UNITED FOODS, INC.
6
7
8
9
10
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
455585
7
UNITED FOODS’ ANSWER TO RWC’S
CROSS-COMPLAINT