1
2
3
4
5
6
R. Thomas Peterson, SBN 58007
OBRIEN, GAZIN & PETERSON
611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 120
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 662-7740
Fax: (714) 662-1562
e-mail: ogplaw@aol.com
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Oma Minor
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a
public entity,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
CITY OF SANTA MARIA, a municipal
)
corporation; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA )
WATER COMPANY, a California
)
corporation; and CITY OF GUADALUPE, )
a municipal corporation; DOES 1 through )
3,000 inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
)
And Related Cross Actions
)
____________________________________)
Lead Case No. CV 770214
(Consolidated for All Purposes)
SANTA MARIA GROUNDWATER
LITIGATION
Assigned to Judge Conrad Rushing for
All Purposes
RESPONSE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT
OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY
ORDER AFTER CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001
Complaint Filed: July 14, 1997
23
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
24
25
Cross-Defendant OMA MINOR (“Responding Party”) hereby responds to the Order
26
After Case Management Conference, Dated June 1, 2001 and posted to the litigation website on
27
June 13, 2001 as follows:
28
1
RESPONSE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY ORDER AFTER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001
1
Responding Party has engaged in a reasonable and diligent search of existing files and
2
records in her possession, custody and control, which files and records may contain information
3
requested in the Order. Notwithstanding the responding party’s best efforts to obtain direct and
4
5
6
complete responses to the inquiries stated in the Order, the information currently known and
available is not in all cases complete or uniform. The responding party is continuing to engage
7
in discovery and should further investigation produce additional information not provided in this
8
response, further information may be provided as appropriate.
9
Responding Party asserts in this litigation the right to use waters existing within the Santa
10
Maria Groundwater Basin (“Basin”) under all grounds permitted by California water law
11
including, but not limited to, overlying groundwater rights, appropriative groundwater rights,
12
13
prescriptive groundwater rights, etc. Further, to the extent any overlying groundwater right
14
claimed by the Responding Party has not in the past and/or is not presently fully exercised for a
15
reasonable and beneficial use, the Responding Party asserts in this litigation that all such
16
overlying rights are preserved, protected and remain paramount overlying groundwater rights
17
without any limitations, conditions or restrictions whatsoever.
18
Question “a”: As to any such parcel of property, all facts known by such party or to
19
which such party has access after reasonable inquiry and diligent search, regarding the amount of
20
21
22
23
water used on that property yearly from 1992 to 1997 and current rates of water usage as of the
year 2001.
Response to Question “a”:
Cross-Defendant Oma Minor (Responding Party) is
24
currently disabled and unable to directly respond. These responses are prepared by her grandson
25
Keith Minor. The amount of water used for Cross-Defendant Oma Minor’s 20 acre parcel
26
(which is obtained from a water well on adjacent property owned by Bruce Gordon and Julie
27
28
2
RESPONSE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY ORDER AFTER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001
1
Ann Gordon) from 1992 through 1997 is currently unavailable because the water well is
2
controlled by others. However, as of 1987 according to the “Water Well Agreement”, the well
3
produces 69 gallons of water per minute. The depth of the well is 875 feet, and the water stood
4
5
6
at 400 feet. The well is shared between two owners: Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Gordon and Oma
Minor. Therefore, the number of people who use the water from the well is limited to eight
7
persons (4 from each household). There are no statistical documents to decipher exactly how
8
much water is used from this well. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true copy of Keith
9
Minor’s response on behalf of his disabled grandmother, Oma Minor; attached as Exhibit “B” is
10
a true copy of the “Water Well Agreement” dated March 14, 1987; and attached as Exhibit “C”
11
are true copies of counsel’s information in these regards.
12
13
Question “b”: As to any such parcel of property, all facts known to such party or to
14
which such party has access after reasonable inquiry and diligent search, regarding the crops
15
grown on that property in each year from 1992 to 1997 and current crops or agricultural usage, if
16
any, as of the year 2001.
17
18
Response to Question “b”: At no time during the period of 1992 through 1997 did
Responding Party or her neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Gordon (co-owners of the well) use the
19
water well for crops or agricultural purposes.
20
21
Question “c”:
As to any such parcel of property, all facts known to such party or to
22
which such party has access after reasonable inquiry and diligent search, regarding the number
23
and size of water pumps located on that property yearly from 1992 to 1997 and current number
24
of pumps as of the year 2001.
25
26
Response to Question “c”: To Responding Party’s knowledge, there is only one water
pump on the adjacent property well that services both parcels and the two owners of the water
27
28
3
RESPONSE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY ORDER AFTER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001
1
2
3
well located on the adjacent property.
Question “d”: As to any such parcel of property, all facts known to such party or to
which such party has access after reasonable inquiry and diligent search, regarding the amount of
4
5
6
7
electricity billed for use on such property and electricity usage attributable to water pumps used
on that property yearly from 1992 to 1997 and electricity usage attributable to water pumps as of
the year 2001.
8
Response to Question “d”: Cross-Defendant Oma Minor’s well uses $600 per year in
9
electricity. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true copy of Keith Minor’s letter dated April 23,
10
11
2002, which describes for his grandmother Oma Minor, the electricity used for the well on
adjacent property and includes the attached letter from Vintage Petroleum, Inc. setting forth the
12
13
$50.00 payments per month for electricity usage and a copy of the allocated accounts receivable
14
detail from Vintage Petroleum showing the $50.00 payments per month for electricity usage for
15
the well during 1997 and 1998.
16
DATED: May 15, 2002
OBRIEN, GAZIN & PETERSON
17
18
By:
19
/s/
R. Thomas Peterson, Attorney for
Cross-Defendant OMA MINOR
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
RESPONSE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY ORDER AFTER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001
1
VERIFICATION
2
3
4
I, R. Thomas Peterson, declare:
I am an attorney at law duly admitted and licensed to practice before all courts of this
State and I have my professional office at 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 120, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
5
6
7
8
I am one of the attorneys of record for Cross-Defendant Oma Minor in the above-entitled
action.
The Cross-Defendant is unable to verify this “Response of Cross-Defendant Oma Minor
to Discovery Order After Case Management Conference Dated June 1, 2001” because CrossDefendant is currently disabled and/or because Cross-Defendant resides out-of-county at this
time. For that reason, I am making this verification on her behalf.
9
10
11
12
I have read the foregoing “Response of Oma Minor to Order After Case Management
Conference” and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own information and belief,
and to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
13
14
Dated: May 15, 2002
/s/
R. Thomas Peterson
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
RESPONSE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY ORDER AFTER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Krista Williams, hereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the following
statements are true and correct.
I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within case. My business address
is 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 120, Costa Mesa, California 92626. My mailing address is the same.
On May 15, 2002, I served the foregoing document described as: RESPONSE OF
CROSS-DEFENDANT OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY ORDER AFTER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001 by:
[X] Posting: I have reviewed the Court’s Order Concerning Electronic Service of
Pleadings and Electronic Posting of Discovery Documents and am readily familiar with the
contents of that Order. Under the terms of said Order, I completed posting to the website and
service by posting the referenced document on the Court’s website.
[X] Mail: I mailed a Notice of Availability to all parties (designating or defaulting to
mail service) on the current website’s service list. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice
of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be
deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
Costa Mesa, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the
party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 15, 2002 at Costa Mesa, California.
17
/s/
Krista Williams
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
RESPONSE OF CROSS-DEFENDANT OMA MINOR TO DISCOVERY ORDER AFTER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATED JUNE 1, 2001