Judges (Some, Only Some) On Los Osos' Lawsuits

I was at a party Friday night in SLO. I knew the hosts and had for 10+ years, but really no one else that night (except my husband, who would prefer not to be mentioned in a sewer blog—well, probably no one wants to be mentioned in here......). The double doors from the main room were open to the patio, where a chiminea was radiating heat and the koi pond waterfall was burbling. I was chatting with a brainy man about politics when a long time friend of his appeared. Brainy man asked him about how his work was going and he said what he was doing. His name was Roger and he was a retired judge. JUDGE ROGER PICQUET!! I nearly fainted. Me: you worked on Los Osos sewer cases!!! He politely and almost indistinguishably cringed a little. He quickly said, and lightly laughed, a lot of us did. He then turned and went inside, perhaps find another hors d'oeuvres or I thought more likely, to trade the chardonnay for a scotch. I felt awful. I had probably ruined his evening.

He did eventually come back out (fortunately with the same drink). I gave him my chair (as penance for dragging his mind where I am sure he never wanted it to go again). I said I was going back in for food, and I was (yes, it was my third plateful of food, I will be honest about that, I never skimp at a party, and the plates were not that large either—you know, the kind you can hold and walk around with).

That chair was graciously offered to me when I came back out, and we had a very pleasant 15-minute conversation! Not about the sewer, but about the bolluxed up Los Osos election and SLO life, normal stuff. Sigh. Poor Los Osos....... But I was thrilled to have met a living, and correct! decision maker for our beleaguered little burg.

When I got home I combed through my computer's hard drive for lawsuits and news articles on Los Osos sewer cases. I am only counting the ones from 2003 - 2006. There were employed on those ghastly tasks, the judges listed below:

Judge Douglas Hilton

Stopped the Recall Board stand down order - 10-7-2005.

Judge Martin Tangeman

Ruled the infamous Measure B illegal.

Judge Barry LaBarbera

The PZLDF case can go forward. (You don't want to know what a pizzle is, but the group called themselves the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund until they found out what it was. They then became Citizens for Clean Water.)

Judge Charles Crandall

PZLDF vs. RWQCB.

Judge Robin Riblet

Bankruptcy.

Now, for Judge Picquet, I found:

2003

Judge Roger Picquet presided over and dismissed the case brought by Cal Cities Water Company against the Regional Water Quality Control Board for allowing a sewer in Los Osos that would return reclaimed water to the ground which would pollute the existing water. (Source: Bay News.)

And this:

March 24, 2005 (The board mentioned here is the pre recall CSD Board - CCLO was the feeder group for directors that were voted into the spots of recalled directors.)


Judge Roger Picquet heard demurrers to the portions of the second lawsuit regarding the wastewater project, CV041047, originally filed in December 2004 by CCLO, late yesterday. This lawsuit alleged that two additional Coastal Commission permits were required before the Los Osos Community Services District could build the wastewater project. Judge Picquet granted LOCSD’s motion to strike these allegations from the lawsuit without leave to amend. Thus, the portions of this lawsuit that could have affected construction of the Los Osos Wastewater Project have been dismissed and the superior court will not consider them further. The only remaining allegation in the lawsuit involves LOCSD’s storm drain facilities not involving the wastewater project. (Source: Tribune.)

And this:

May 24, 2005 (Recall Board)

Judge Dismisses CCLO Lawsuit Against LOCSD

Judge Roger Picquet today dismissed the lawsuit filed by Concerned Citizens of Los Osos in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court.  CCLO had alleged that the LOCSD Board was required to adopt ordinances on the Los Osos Wastewater Project by a 4/5 vote. The judge disagreed, and ruled that the 3/5 majority that voted in December was adequate for adopting ordinances for the Los Osos Wastewater Project. 


Judge Picquet granted the District’s motion to demurrer without leave to amend, and indicated that since his ruling was a matter of law, there was no way to cure the petition for subsequent consideration. (Source: Tribune.)

And this:

Judge Picquet presided over the 2005-2006 Grand Jury which explored the expenditure of public funds by the Recall LOCSD Board.

And this:

Early April, 2006 (Recall Board)

In April, Judge Roger Picquet blocked the services district from using the remaining $2 million to $3 million from a state low-interest loan until the agency resolves a $28 million payment dispute with two contractors hired to build a state-mandated sewer. (Source: Tribune.)

And this:

April 7, 2006 (Recall Board)

On April 5, 2006, the CSD sent a letter of objection to the Superior court. They claim that last Thursday ruling by Judge Picquet is incomplete, does not specifically state a dollar amount to be frozen, and requests that the audit be completed prior to a ruling. In short, the CSD is going to continue to spend SRF money regardless of the Court ruling freezing it. Sounds like Contempt of Court to me. (Source: April 7, 2006 - Calhoun's Cannon Blog, Ann Calhoun, posted by Anonymous.)

And that is where I will leave it for now. Judge Picquet, if you ever read this blog and get depressed or have nightmares, please seek treatment immediately (and forgive me for reminding you of probably the worst cases you were ever forced to hear).

PZLDF Correction!

I spoke to someone knowledgeable on the PZLDF case yesterday. This person recommended a closer reading of the judgement against PZLDF. There is a difference I learned, between paying "court costs" and "attorney's costs." Around five thousand compared to hundreds of thousands. So those PZLDF signers, however many of them that are still left, for all those fruitless years of struggle and ultimate defeat, will not be paying much at all to the Water Board, just the court costs. Well, cheers for that small victory anyway, right? Right?

Of course, their own attorney's fees, that might be a different matter, but one shrouded in secrecy to us non-PZLDFers of course. Much like the dollar amount of the mysterious bill that the CSD owed PZLDF's attorney, the CSD having signed to be a party in the case with PZLDF in its early stages, lo, these many years ago. 

Joining the case was determined by some board agreement hatched in some secret Brown-Act violation meeting, with the idea to pay 25% of the total bill to represent the CSD's interests. This pointless idea was never agendized for a public meeting or listed even for closed session, due no doubt to fears of public outcry. The CSD had to pay the attorney's costs from before the contract was even signed! But hey, when your friends need a cash cow to pay bills, you tie a rope on her and bring her into the barn. The CSD was bankrupt but, hey, friends are friends.

The board's decision lacked any sort of public comment until after the fact, and the tone by that time was not pretty, the beef being, besides being snookered into joining the case, is that the CSD—well, let's say the public anyway (not the board members)—NEVER KNEW the TOTAL AMOUNT of the bill, so the dollar amount on the CSD's percentage was just a nice round number that could never be verified. Perhaps the CSD paid the TOTAL bill. We in the community will never know. The CSD exited the case quietly.

Perhaps to exit this story ourselves we can imagine that PZLDF was treated pro bono these past five years, giving a nice warm, fuzzy glow to their losing their bogus and silly case so spectacularly?

Doghouse Retrieved from PZLDF!

Darn. I went to the Appellate Court website today to see if anything more was added and found that they had removed the word "doghouse!"

In its place was this dull language,
" Return to SLOSC Civil Appeals attention: Charlie Duran -1 Box Containing Exhibits 1- 10 -2 White Binders (2" and 4")"

Bummer. But one final line was added:

"Case complete."

Yes, indeed!

The Final, Final, Final End.

I reported a few days ago that the PZLDF case, Citizens for Clean Water (or PZLDF) vs. The Regional Water Quality Control Board et al., that flopped for years and was appealed to the next higher court until it finally made it to the State Supreme Court and WAS REJECTED by that court, had few more bits of business completed today: The administrative record was returned to the superior court, a remittitur was issued and finally, after so many years I can't recall where it all began, the case is now COMPLETE, DONE, OVER.

What is a remittitur you ask? (I know I wondered), so I looked it up here:
http://www.capcentral.org/procedures/case_manag/docs/FinalStep-AppellateProcess.pdf

"The remittitur is the final step in the appellate process. If neither rehearing nor review is granted, the Court of Appeal will issue its remittitur about 61 calendar days after the opinion has been filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272.) The issuance of the remittitur signals the end of the appellate court’s jurisdiction. The matter is now properly back before the trial court, which must carry out the higher court’s decision."

So that explains the statement, "Administrative record returned to superior court." But what was the superior court (I know, It has been so long)? It was: 

San Luis Obispo County Superior Court - Main (SLO Court 1)

Trial Court Case Number: CV070472 And what was the higher court, the appellate court's decision? CCW, PZLDF, must pay the court costs of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  When did this all begin? The earliest pdf I have in my files is dated May 25, 2007.  Looks like a whole lotta court costs to me, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. Those poor, poor people who fell for this DOA case. Sad, sad, sad. Addendum: On 1/23/13 the record of the case was returned from the supreme court to the  appellate court. The court language for the containers with the paperwork was listed as, "3 doghouses." Might be what the appellants will be living in once they pay the bills. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2030576&doc_no=S206739 Doghouse defined: http://socal-appellate.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-doghouse.html To see the timeline of this case at the court of appeals: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&doc_no=

PZLDF Fizzles at California Supreme Court

Dated 1-16-2013, off the appellate court website, (it was posted later than that date), the petition to review the "Citizen's for Clean Water" or the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund has been DENIED. Looks like it is the end of the road of avoiding the Regional Water Quality Control Board's court costs.

If you wish to fill yourself in on these goings on, here is a good place to start:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&doc_no=

It will be interesting to see how much dough PZLDF coughs up, hairball-like I suspect, with much chuffing and gagging.

Snowball's Chance Around the Supreme Court's Campfire

I know that we have all waited with baited breath for the next bit of PZLDF news and sadly, there is nothing yet to report. But there is some interesting background information around this sort of case, which left the Second District Appellate Court on December 5, 2012 and was officially received by the California Supreme Court on December 11, 2012, as a "Petition for Review."

There is a lot of riveting information in the 181 page Court Statistics Report linked here, but I will just toss out the tastiest morsels to slowly roast over the campfire:

PETITION FOR REVIEW. A petition for review is filed in the California Supreme Court to ask that court to exercise its discretion to review a decision issued by a Court of Appeal in an appeal or an original proceeding. The Supreme Court has a total of 90 days to consider a petition for review, after which it loses jurisdiction. If apetition for review is granted by the Supreme Court then full briefing occurs on the case; if a petition is deniedthen the judgment of the lower court becomes final as to the case.

petition for review A request for Supreme

Court review of a Court of Appeal decision.

petition for review denied An order by the

Supreme Court declining review of a Court of

Appeal decision.

petition for review granted An order by the

Supreme Court granting review of a Court of

Appeal decision.

                                                                               

petition for review granted and held An order                        

by the Supreme Court granting review of a Court

of Appeal decision that will be held for final action

until a lead case addressing a related issue has

been decided by the Supreme Court.

petition for review granted and transferred

An order by the Supreme Court granting review of

a Court of Appeal summary denial in an original

proceeding and transferring review of the case to

a Court of Appeal for further proceedings.

request for publication or depublication

A case in which the sole relief requested is for the

Supreme Court to order that a Court of Appeal

decision be either published or depublished.

Page 31 has an interesting statistic for the year 2010-2011; just 5% of the cases submitted were granted a review. One would assume then, that 95% were NOT granted a review.

On Friday, the first 30 days will have expired from the jurisdictional time clock. Of course, we do not know if this means working days or calendar days, so we will need to be extra patient if this drags out longer than 90 days.

I'm sure those PZLDFers slated to begin payments to the Water Board if this case does not get picked up by the Supremes (and in crude language, "won") must be dancing a toastie-footed jig right about now as they are pretty close to the campfire flames (years of Water Board Court costs must be at least in the hundreds of thousands by now). But they, like us, will just have to wait and see...."Citizens in Boiling Water" comes to mind.

PZLDF Just Upped Court Costs For Its Members

More legal costs have just been taken on by PZLDF, the zombie group that just won't die despite repeated losses in many courts. As of Wednesday, their case records have been transmitted from the 2nd Appellate District Court to California's Supreme Court. The service copy of their petition for review has been received, but does not yet appear on the Supreme Court website yet as a "case accepted." Well, let's see what happens next week, shall we?

The Tiny Bit More PZLDF That Means A LOT

Off the the 2nd District Appellate Court's website:

11/16/2012

Petition for rehearing denied.

This means PZLDF must pay up those pesky and expensive costs the Water Board incurred litigating this hopeless case that PZLDF mounted against them . Can PZLDF pull another trick out of the battered old hat to avoid paying? The next stop up the court food chain is the California Supreme Court. We'll see.

More PZLDF "News"

Right off the 2nd District Appellate Court's website:

11/15/2012

Letter sent to:

    CA Supreme Crt and courtesy copy to all counsel; Purs. to CRC Rule 8.1120, we enclose herewith copy of request for publication of the opinion in the above matter, along with a copy of the opinion. We do not recommend publication as the opinion does not, in our view, meet the required standards.

So....the request by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board who wanted this case to be published and the court in Ventura thinks it shouldn't be but sent it on, is now going to the California Supreme Court for an opinion as to whether or not it can be.

This move should now give those in this now 501 (c) 3-less PZLDF group lots of time to figure out how to pay for this. Good luck. You might consider suing the person who talked you into this scheme maybe?

And it will require the Water Board to spend more of its time and more money of the citizens of California to pay for this—until the final bill is due, which it will be.............eventually.

Arghhhhhh....PZLDF Arises From The Dead, Yesterday. UGH.

UPDATE TO FOOTNOTE:

It wasn't clear until today, November 15, but it was the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board who asked Deputy Helen G. Arens to publish the case, the appellate court did not change its mind to request that it be published.

Original Story:

PZLDF just filed a rehearing petition. Is this a ploy to keep things in play so they don't have to pay? Who knows!

See for yourself here:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&doc_no=

Footnote, the Deputy Attorney General handling the case, Helen G. Arens filed a request to publish the opinion given by the court in this case. That means:

 "Published opinions of courts are also collectively referred to as case law, which is one of the major sources of law in common law legal systems."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion

That would end anymore forward motion on this sad, sorry thing I think.

The poor, poor people who signed on to this dead end. I feel really bad for them when the bill for this comes.

Correcting Incorrect Assertions About PZLDF Case

The RAZOR ONLINE has written an article on the apparent demise of the PZLDF case. But the Razor got some things wrong.

"It’s unclear what the basis of the appeal actually was because the appeal document is not public record."
RAZOR

The appeal document is in the public record, it is just not online. I asked the court in Ventura (where the PZLDF case was heard) as to how to get a copy of that document and the answer was: to come to Ventura and ask to see a copy (no, they will not make a copy for you) or hire a service that does this - which is: they to come to the courthouse with a portable copy machine, request the document and make a copy for you for a price.

"One could speculate that CCW’s attorney Shaunna Sullivan wanted to move the case out of the area in hopes that the appellate judges would be further removed from local politics and biases."
RAZOR

One could, but that isn't how it works:

The vast majority of cases in the California courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts — located in each of the state's 58 counties. (Which is the court the case was in before it went to the court of appeals.)

The next level of judicial authority within the state's judicial branch resides with the Courts of Appeal. Most of the cases that come before the Courts of Appeal involve the review of a superior court decision that is being contested by a party to the case. The Legislature has divided the state geographically into six appellate districts, each containing a Court of Appeal.

Source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/2113.htm

"At the tail-end of the opinion, the judge specifically stated that the costs to the respondents (CCRWQCB) shall not be published. "
RAZOR

That isn't what "not publishing" refers to. It refers to the case itself, being published or not published.

"An opinion that is not ordered published shall not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action or proceeding except as provided: when the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or when the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action or proceeding because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action or proceeding. January 1, 1974 Division 3 Rules for Publication of Appellate Opinions Rule 977 Citation of Unpublished Opinions Prohibited; Exceptions (www.nonpublication.com)" (From the California part.)

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/Nonpublication/Arguments/PublicationRules.htm

You can read more than you would ever want to know about that here:

http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/14-1%20Wasby.pdf

"There is no question that taxpayers and the district are shouldering the burden of those costs, as shared by the LOCSD."
RAZOR

No, the costs are to be paid by PZLDF or CCW, and the names of those people who are unfortunately on that case are on the superior court document. The District is not involved.

PZLDF Case Fizzles Out

Just got a court notification that the long-time-ongoing-seemingly-neverending PZLDF case, or "Citizens for Clean Water v. Regional Water Quality Control Board" case number B231945 has finally ended as a "voluntary dismissal."

You can read what I got at this link:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&q=319766&f=558848379

Case: B231945, 2nd District, Division 6

Disposition date (YYYY-MM-DD):        2012-10-25
Disposition description:            Affirmed in full
Disposition status as of 2012-10-25:    Final 
Notes:  
AFF/17p/YGP 

A definition from http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/voluntary-dismissal/ says,
"Voluntary dismissal refers to the termination of a suit at the request of the plaintiff in a suit. The plaintiff is the party who initially filed a law suit with the court. In a voluntary dismissal, the plaintiff voluntarily withdraws the action or claim it brought before the court."

Reading the brief, it was clear, even though it is not to be published, PZLDF basically has no case. Whatever hopes there were to eliminate the Prohibition Zone, AKA the circumscribed area drawn for necessary sewer-hood, and the hope that it could be broken, thereby meaning we don't need to get a sewer—d-a-s-h-e-d.

Read the legal stuff here:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B231945.PDF

Last tidbit—PZLDF must pay the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's costs.

PZLDF Cause from October 10, 2012

The 2nd Appellate District shows that the cause was argued and submitted. Who knows what happens next....

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&q=230386&f=558848379

The due date for the court's opinion to be filed is 1/7/2013, so we know WHEN it will happen anyway.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/scheduledActions.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&div=6&doc_no=B231945

PZLDF Case Moves Along

It's been so long that some of you may have forgotten about the PZLDF case. Way-y-y-y-y too long to write that book about all that has gone with it in this little blog, but for a very brief recap, it is about the Prohibition Zone and dismantling it.

This case now lives in the 2nd Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals and the calendar date for the hearing is October 10, 2012, 1:30 PM in Ventura.

The 2nd District main courthouse is in Los Angeles. The secondary District courthouse, hosting Division Six in Ventura handles appeals from San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. 

Division 6
Court Place 200 East Santa Clara Street Ventura, CA 93001

Phone: (805) 641-4700

If you want to see this case's progress from its arrival to this court, follow this link:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&q=286644&f=558848379

PZLDF Still Phizzing

Not wanting to write a tome here on the "Citizen's for Clean Water" case — where basically the appellants (formerly the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund) have been endlessly trying to break up the Prohibition Zone set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1983, a case lost so many times it is now found wandering aimlessly along the edges of rationality — I just thought that I would post the link from the latest e-mail notice of the appellant's last brief filing which has has tonight popped into my inbox.

You may do your own research on this case if you wish.

Unfortunately the court in which this thing now resides has no pdfs of documents filed. You CAN see them, but it necessitates a trip to Ventura with your own portable copy machine if you wish a copy to linger over, or you can hire a service to do this for you. So I will simply post a link here to the list of documents which the court does provide.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&q=230386&f=558848379

While We Wait...

for the California Coastal Commission to return my public records request materials, ponder this:

The PZLDF appeal has moved forward. You might recall that this group's continuation to an appeal of their lost case is what is keeping the CDOs in place on 45 or so homes in Los Osos.