The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, March 23, 2016. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
Great Oaks Water Company v. Santa Clara Valley Water District, S231846—Review Granted and Held—March 23, 2016
The Supreme Court granted review and deferred further action pending disposition of City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District, S226036, which raises the issues: (1) Do the District’s ground water pumping charges violate Proposition 218 or Proposition 26? (2) Does the rate ratio mandated by Water Code section 75594 violate Proposition 218 or Proposition 26?
The Court of Appeal, Sixth District, held in a published opinion, Great Oaks Water Company v. Santa Clara Valley Water District (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1187, that: (1) extraction fee was property-related charge generally subject to constitutional provision, but exempt from requirement of voter ratification; (2) extraction fee did not serve regulatory purpose; (3) district gave timely notice of hearing preceding imposition of proposed extraction fee; (4) pre-suit claim was insufficient to sustain monetary relief based on procedural defects or on theory that district charged disproportionate part of fee to non-agricultural users and charged retailer for services not used by or immediately available to it; but (5) pre-suit claim did not preclude monetary relief on theory that district had charged more than was required to provide property-related service on which fee was predicated; (6) rates adopted by district for extraction fee were not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence in violation of water district act; and (7) district did not violate act by spending proceeds of extraction fee on activities outside scope of act, by commingling groundwater revenue with other monies, or by engaging in practices that resulted in a reserve fund.
Marina Coast Water District v. P.U.C., S230728—Review Granted and Held—March 23, 2016
The Supreme Court granted review in this original proceeding following a Public Utilities Commission decision. It deferred further action pending disposition of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, S226645, which raises the issue: are invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, even with all references to attorney opinions, advice and similar information redacted?
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
