Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP02321, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02321    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 86

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Date:               10/31/24 (1:30 PM) 

Case:                           City of Ontario et al. v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (24STCP02321) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff/Petitioner City of Ontario’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

Plaintiff and petitioner City of Ontario’s (“Ontario”) requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(b), (c).)

Ontario moves for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant and respondent Inland Empire Utilities Agency (“Agency” or “IEUA”) from “reducing the quantity of water available to be purchased, on either a monthly or annual basis, by the City of Ontario pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of the Chino Basin Regional Sewage Service Contract [“Regional Contract”] as amended October 19, 1994.” (Notice at 2:5-8.) Section 15 and 16 provided Ontario and other contracting agencies with a right of first purchase of treated effluent, i.e., recycled water. (Jones Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10 & Ex. 1 at §§ 15(A), 16(A)(1), 16(A)(2), (B).) The Regional Contract expired on January 2, 2023. (Jones Decl. ¶ 13.)

Ontario objects to the Agency’s adoption of ordinances, which purportedly subordinate Ontario’s right of first purchase to the Agency’s obligations under the judgment in Orange County Water District v. City of Chino, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 117628 (“OC Judgment”) to provide a certain flow of Santa Ana River water at Prado Dam for the benefit for downstream users (RJN Ex. 3, Ordinance No. 114 at § 15 [Agency has exclusive right to recycled water, with right of first purchase governed by Ordinance No. 115]; RJN Ex. 4, Ordinance No. 115 at § 27 [“IEUA, within its discretion, may prioritize the usage of recycled water for meeting the SAR Base Flow Obligation when it is necessary to do so regardless of the effect on base supply for purchase”],§ 10(EE) [definition of “Santa Ana River (SAR) Base Flow Obligation]; Lin Decl. ¶¶ 4-13 [describing SAR Base Flow Obligation]; see also Jones Decl. ¶ 29 & Ex. 5 at 9 [Agency “manages recycled water to first meet a Santa Ana River minimum environmental flow discharge requirement…followed by member agency non-potable reuse demands”].) Ontario and the other municipal plaintiffs contend that they still have the right to first purchase under the Regional Contract notwithstanding the contract’s expiration. (Compl. ¶¶ 66-69.)

“[T]he question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted involves two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.”  (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) However, before the Court can exercise its discretion and consider the two interrelated factors, “the applicant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to injunctive relief.” (Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of California (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138, citation omitted.) The applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury due to the inadequacy of legal remedies.” (Ibid.)

Ontario fails to show a “real threat of immediate and irreparable injury due to the inadequacy of legal remedies.” (Triple A Machine, 213 Cal.App.3d at 138, emphasis added.) In no uncertain terms, the Manager of Water Resources for Agency declares: “To the best of my knowledge, IEUA has never refused to honor the right of first purchase. To the best of my knowledge, IEUA has not informed Ontario that it will refuse to honor Ontario’s right of first purchase next year or for any particular year after. To the best of my knowledge, IEUA has no plans to refuse to honor Ontario’s right of first purchase in the future.” (Lin Decl. ¶ 21; see also Lin Decl. ¶ 38 [“Ontario is IEUA’s largest recycled water customer and, to the best of my knowledge, IEUA has no

intent of reducing the base supply of recycled water available to Ontario or its other customer agencies if IEUA does not have to”].) Agency also explains that it does not have an incentive to deny Ontario the right of first purchase under Ordinance No. 115 because it needs the revenue from the sale of recycled water to pay for operation and maintenance of its recycled water system, as well as to pay for the debt incurred to construct capital projects. (Lin Decl. ¶¶ 41, 42 & Ex. O.)

To the extent that Agency needs additional recycled water to fulfill its obligations under the OC Judgment, Agency avers that it can stop its replenishment of groundwater and use the resulting additional available water to meet its obligations under the judgment and the direct use demands of its customers. (Lin Decl. ¶ 43 & Ex. P [regional groundwater charge has lower priority than agency direct use demands and obligation of judgment].)

Ontario contends that the uncertainty surrounding the right of first purchase under Ordinance 115 warrants the issuance of an injunction. This argument pertains to the justiciability of the present dispute, i.e., whether the case is sufficiently ripe for the Court to reach the merits of the dispute. (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 170.) Based on the present showing, however, Ontario fails to show any immediate threat that it will not be able to purchase recycled water from Agency. For the foregoing reasons, Ontario’s assertion that it may not be able to avail itself of the right of first purchase of recycled water is currently hypothetical.

Because Ontario fails to show any immediate threat of harm to warrant issuance of the requested injunction, the Court does not consider the likelihood that Ontario will prevail on the merits or the balance of harms that would result from the proposed preliminary injunction.

The motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.