Westlands Water Dist. v. N. Coast Rivers Alliance

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NORTH COAST RIVERS ALLIANCE et al., Defendants and Appellants.

F081174

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

March 9, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 19CECG03887)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge.

Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Alexis E. Krieg, Stephanie L. Clark and Jamey M.B. Volker for Defendants and Appellants.

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Daniel J. O'Hanlon, William T. Chisum, and Carissa M. Beecham for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

A validation action is a unique proceeding for declaratory relief governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 860 through 870.5.¹ Respondent Westlands Water District initiated such an action to obtain judicial approval of a contract between it and the federalgovernment. The deadline for interested parties to appear in the case and contest the validity of the contract was December 16, 2019.

On December 16, 2019, appellants² attempted to electronically file a joint answer to the validation complaint. The next morning, appellants were informed the filing had been rejected due to nonpayment of a first appearance fee for five of the six answering parties. Appellants' counsel promptly resubmitted the pleading with the required fees. The document was accepted and electronically file stamped at 9:55 a.m., December 17, 2019.

A dispute arose over the filing date of the answer. The pleading was found to be untimely, which effectively barred appellants from participating in the lawsuit. Appellants claim this ruling was erroneous as a matter of law.

Subject to conditions set forth in section 1010.6, trial courts may permit or require electronic filing of documents in civil actions. One condition is "[a]ny document received electronically by the court between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59:59 p.m. on a court day shall be deemed filed on that court day." (Id., subd. (b)(3).) Respondent does not dispute that appellants' pleading was received by the Fresno Superior Court on December 16, 2019. However, it contends all required fees must accompany the initial submission of an electronically filed document in order for the filing date to relate back to the date of receipt. We disagree with respondent's interpretation of the law and will reverse the trial court's finding of untimeliness.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 25, 2019, respondent filed a validation complaint in the Fresno Superior Court. The complaint named as defendants "All Persons Interested in the Matter of the Contract Between the United States and Westlands Water District Providing for Project Water Service, San Luis Unit and Delta Division and Facilities Repayment." (Some capitalization omitted.) Pursuant to sections 861 and 861.1, service was accomplished by publication of a summons in two newspapers. The summons stated, in relevant part: "All persons interested in this matter may contest the legality or validity of the matter by appearing and filing a written answer to the complaint not later than December 16, 2019."

Subject to an exception for self-represented parties, the Fresno Superior Court requires electronic filing in civil cases. (Super. Ct. Fresno County, Local Rules, rule 4.1.2(A).)³ "The electronic filing of documents must be effected using the Court's electronic service providers." (Id., local rule 4.1.2(D)(1); former local rule 4.1.13(D).) On December 16, 2019, appellants attempted to file an answer to the complaint using an electronic service provider called One Legal.

During the electronic filing process, appellants' counsel "made sure the type of document [she] was submitting included the first appearance fee, and confirmed that the credit card information on file was accurate."⁴ The attorney "saw a warning that [she] might need to adjust the fee amount if the document was filed on behalf of multiple parties," but she had seen this "generic warning" before when filing complaints in othercases. The attorney had "never needed to adjust the fee amount when filing a complaint on behalf of multiple parties," so she ignored the warning and paid only one first appearance fee instead of six. One Legal provided a written confirmation showing the pleading was submitted at 4:57 p.m.

On December 17, 2019, appellants' counsel was notified regarding the requirement of a first appearance fee for each answering party. Counsel resubmitted appellants' answer with the correct fee payment. The pleading was accepted and electronically file stamped with this notation: "E-FILED [¶] 12/17/2019 9:55 AM."

On December 30, 2019, respondent filed a motion for entry of a judgment in its favor (similar in substance to a motion for summary judgment). The moving papers focused on the merits of the validation complaint, but respondent also claimed appellants' answer to the complaint was "time barred." The argument was factually based on appellants' alleged failure to meet the filing deadline provided in the summons. The legal basis for the argument was section 862, which states: "Jurisdiction shall be complete after the date specified in the summons. Any party interested may, not later than the date specified in the summons, appear and contest the legality or validity of the matter sought to be determined."

Appellants filed an opposition to respondent's motion. In a short discussion regarding the timeliness of their answer, appellants argued the pleading was submitted to the court on the deadline specified in the summons. The written opposition contained no legal argument on this issue. Appellants' factual argument was supported by a declaration from the attorney who had electronically submitted the answer, along with the documents confirming dates and times of the filing activity.

The trial court issued a tentative ruling indicating respondent's motion would be denied. However, the trial court also tentatively found appellants' answer was "filed after the December 16, 2019 deadline." No analysis was provided in support of this conclusion. The pleading was deemed "untimely" based on section 862 and thefollowing language in City of San Diego v. San Diegans for Open Government (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 568 at page 579:

"We view the time limit established by section 862 like a statute of limitations. Put differently, if any interested party appears in a validation action after the time period permitted by the applicable summons, the government would have a valid defense, preventing that interested party from further challenging the government's proposed action."

When the motion was heard, appellants argued section 1010.6, subdivision (b)(3) (section 1010.6(b)(3)) "governs the effective date of the filing." In other words, they claimed the answer should be deemed filed as of the date it was first received by the superior court. The hearing concluded with the matter being taken under submission.

On March 16, 2020, the trial court issued a minute order summarily adopting its tentative ruling. Appellants filed a notice of entry of order on April 10, 2020. A notice of appeal followed.

In May 2020, appellants and two groups of similarly situated defendants filed a motion in the trial court to stay the action pending the outcomes of their respective appeals. The other moving parties had also filed answers that were found to be untimely. In July 2020, respondent filed a "renewed" motion for entry of judgment in its favor, which has yet to be ruled upon. In August 2020, the trial court granted appellants' motion to stay the proceedings.⁵

DISCUSSION

I. Appealability

Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the challenged ruling was made in a nonappealable order. "Section 904.1, which codifies the general list of appealable judgments and orders, also effectively codifies the common law one-final-judgment rule. Under this rule, an appeal lies only from a final judgment that terminates the trial court proceedings by completely disposing of the matter in controversy." (Walton v. Mueller (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161, 172, fn. 9.)

Respondent claims the minute order is not a "judgment" for purposes of section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). Appellants rely on the principle that "'[i]t is not the form of the decree but the substance and effect of the adjudication which is determinative.'" (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 698.) Appellants argue the trial court's finding of untimeliness was a dispositive ruling and is therefore appealable. In the alternative, appellants ask us to treat the appeal as a petition for writ relief. (See H.D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1357, 1366 ["An appellate court has discretion to treat a purported appeal from a nonappealable order as a petition for writ of mandate"].) We agree with appellants' first argument and need not treat the appeal as a writ petition.

"A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding." (§ 577.) "'As a general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final.'" (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 698.) Accordingly, "it has long been the settled rule that in a case involving multiple parties, a judgment is final and appealable when it leaves no issues to bedetermined as to one party." (Dakota Payphone, LLC v. Alcaraz (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 493, 506.)

"A validation action 'is...