Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: BC623542, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC623542    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 1

BC623542      PRAXEDES E RUNNING ET AL VS COVINA IRRIGATING COMPANY

Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Re Related Cases

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Re Related Cases is DENIED.  Clerk to give notice.

Background

On June 13, 2016, Praxedes E. Running and the Praxedes E. Running Trust filed this action against Covina Irrigating Company, the City of Azusa, Canyon Water Company, William L. McIntyre, Jr., and Andrew M. McIntyre. The claims in the Third Amended Complaint, filed March 20, 2017, were asserted against the original defendants as well as George Morrow, Chet Anderson, Fran Delach, and San Gabriel River Water Committee. Plaintiffs allege the Defendants improperly diverted water Plaintiff had relied on for nearly 60 years to irrigate her seven-acre property in Azusa, causing mature trees to die and the land to deteriorate.

On January 13, 2023, San Gabriel River Water Committee filed a probate action, 23STPB00407 In re: The Praxedes E. Running General Power of Attorney, petitioning he court for an order determining: (1) the 2009 power of attorney for Praxedes Running was and is invalid and never in effect; and (2) acts taken thereunder are invalid.

Also on January 13, 2023, San Gabriel River Water Committee filed a Notice of Related Case in probate law case 23STPB00407 In re: The Praxedes E. Running General Power of Attorney involving 23STPB00407, civil law case BC623542 Running v. Covina Irrigating Company and Yuba Superior Court case PRPB22-00151 In re: Estate of Praxedes Simeon Running. On March 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related Case involving the same three cases in the civil action.

On April 11, 2023, Department 1 issued an order declining to relate the cases listed in the Notice.

Motion

On April 21, 2023, Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 11, 2023 order. Defendant contends the Court’s order is incorrect on two issues, Defendant was not served with the notice of related case, and the cases should be related.

No party filed a timely opposition and the motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.)

Motion for Reconsideration

Standard

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) 

The Court Shall Not Relate the Two Cases

Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee seeks reconsideration of the Court’s April 11, 2023 order declining to relate civil law case BC623542 and probate law case 23STPB00407.  The motion is timely. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008.) 

Defendant’s motion contends it was not served with Plaintiff’s March 22, 2023 Notice of Related Case. (Mot. at 7:1-3.) However, Defendant filed its own Notice of Related Case, on January 13, 2023 in the probate action. As noted in the Court’s April 11, 2023 order, Defendant failed to file the January 13, 2023 Notice in the civil case or provide a copy of the Notice to Department 1 as required. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d) (“The Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice”); LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(2) (“a copy of the Notice of Related Cases must be filed in Department 1 for matters to be determined in Department 1.”).) Defendant does not contend its Notice of Related Case was improperly served. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(k), “[a] party is not required to serve and file Notice of Related Case under this rule if another party has already filed a notice and served all parties under this rule on the same case.” Accordingly, the purported lack of service of Plaintiffs’ March 22, 2023 Notice does not appear material. Moreover, Defendant has been provided a further opportunity to be heard in the instant motion.

In its April 11, 2023 order, the Court indicated “on January 31, 2023, the court granted Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee’s ex parte application to stay the civil case pending the disposition of probate law case 23STPB00407.” The January 31, 2023 minute order stated, in part, “The Ex Parte Application FOR ORDER GRANTING STAY OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF RELATED CASE NO. 23STPB00407, INVOLVING PETITION SUBJECT TO PROBATE CODE § 4541(a) AND (b), WHICH DEFENDANT’S DISPOSITIVE MOTI filed by San Gabriel River Water Committee [DOE 4] on 01/30/2023 is Granted.” Defendant correctly argues the civil case was not stayed, as confirmed in the April 14, 2023 minute order issued in BC623542. (Mot. at 6:20-24, 8:25-27.) The ex parte application sought to continue trial as alternative relief and only the continuance was granted.

The Court’s April 11, 2023 order also stated, in part, “[o]nly San Gabriel Water Committee is a party to both actions.” Defendant contends it is not the only party to both actions. (Mot. at 4:10-16; 8:27-9:1; Park Decl. ¶ 12 (“SGRWC and defendant City of Azusa—two of the four remaining defendants in the Civil Action—are parties in the Probate Action after the City of Azusa filed its joinder in the Probate Action. Counsel for the City of Azusa also represents defendant Azusa Valley Water Company (‘AVWC’), an interested Party to the Probate Action. As to the remaining defendant, Covina Irrigating Company (‘CICO’), it made a special appearance as an interested party to the Probate Action and is believed to remain an interested party to the Probate Action.”).) Defendant attached its own probate filings to the declaration. (Id. Ex. A, E.)

While Defendant’s motion contends “the parties to both actions are identical . . . ,” (Mot. at 8:27), Defendant’s counsel acknowledges only “two of the four remaining defendants in the Civil Action—are parties in the Probate Action . . . .” (Park Decl. ¶ 12.) Defendant City of Azusa filed a response and joinder to Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee’s probate petition on March 24, 2023. On April 14, 2023, Defendant City of Azusa also filed a response and joinder to Defendant San Gabriel River Water Committee’s amended petition.

Defendant indicates its counsel “also represents defendant Azusa Valley Water Company,” (Park Decl. ¶ 12), and refers to AVWC as either “an interested party to the probate action,” (Ibid.; Mot. at 6:17), or “a potentially interested Party to the Probate Action.” (Mot. at 4:14.) Defendant further contends “Covina Irrigating Company (“CICO”), . . . made a special appearance as an interested party to the Probate Action and is believed to remain an interested party to the Probate Action.” (Park Decl. ¶ 12.)

The Court reviewed the docket in 23STPB00407 and it does not appear that Defendant AVWC has made any filings in the probate action and it is not identified as a party thereto. While Defendant suggests Defendant CICO “made a special appearance” in the probate action, it does not appear that Defendant CICO has made any filings in the probate action and is also not identified as a party thereto.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s motion to reconsider its April 11, 2023 order and shall not relate civil case BC623542 with probate law case 23STPB00407. As described above, the cases do not involve the same parties. Even if every defendant became a party to the probate action and joined Defendant’s amended probate petition, the cases are not based upon the same or similar claims. Rather, Defendant asserts a defense in the civil action that it also seeks to adjudicate as an affirmative claim for relief in the probate action. None of Plaintiff’s substantive claims against the Defendants are at issue in the probate action. The cases do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events. The probate action arises out of Defendant’s desire to invalidate powers of attorney signed in 1994 and 2009, and, as a result, also invalidate the government tort claim and the filing of the civil action, whereas the civil action arises out of alleged water diversion resulting in vegetation destruction. Finally, there will not be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases are heard by different judges. While Defendant seeks to invalidate the civil action in both proceedings, this commonality is insufficient, viewing the litigation as a whole, to require a substantial duplication of judicial resources.

Moreover, as stated in the Court’s April 11, 2023 order, there remains good cause not to relate the civil case to the probate action, even if the cases satisfied one of the grounds enumerated in California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Department 1 would not reassign the probate case to a civil department. The civil case has been pending since 2016 with the judicial officer currently assigned to the case having presided over a significant portion of the litigation. Accordingly, relating the cases and reassigning the civil case to the probate department would likely result in a substantial duplication and waste of judicial resources.

The Court shall not relate civil law case BC623542 with probate law case 23STPB00407.