Judge: Peter Wilson, Case: 20-00005776, Date: 2022-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Withdraw Answer

The motion by defendant Marilee Hawkins Cherry’ to withdraw her Answer is DENIED.

Defendant’s at-issue Verified Answer was voluntarily filed on November 5, 2020. (ROA 128.) Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request for the Comprehensive Adjudication of the Borrego Valley Groundwater Subbasin No. 7.024-01, a Judgment was entered in this matter on April 8, 2021. The Court found that the Stipulated Judgment met the criteria set forth in CCP § 850. (ROA 316.) The Stipulated Judgment and Judgment Findings and Order were filed the same day. (ROA 319, 338-342.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion (ROA 448) is DENIED AS MOOT.

In any event, Defendant has provided no basis for the withdrawal of her Verified Answer.  In the Verified Answer Defendant identified the parcels in which she had an interest, and all such parcels overlie the basin, as attested to by Plaintiff (and Joined by the Watermaster (ROA 478)) without objection or response by Defendant. (Foley Decl. (ROA 476) para. 2.)

Plaintiff to give notice.

Motion for Leave to Intervene

The unopposed motion by Ashley Bilyk and Lee Tyler Bilyk to Intervene is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request for the Comprehensive Adjudication of the Borrego Valley Groundwater Subbasin No. 7.024-01, a judgment was entered in this matter on April 8, 2021 (“Judgment”). The Court found that the Stipulated Judgment met the criteria set forth in CCP § 850. (ROA 316.) The Stipulated Judgment and Judgment Findings and Order were filed the same day. (ROA 319, 338-342.)

Defendants in Intervention, Ashley Bilyk and Lee Tyler Bilyk (collectively, “Owners”), purchased certain real property known as 1072 Borrego Valley Road, Borrego Springs CA 92004-4283, Assessor Parcel No. 140-130-44 (the “Property”). Owners are the proposed transferees of 18.13 acre feet of Baseline Pumping Allocation (“BPA”) associated with the Property and subject to the Judgment.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, a trial court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where the following factors are met: (1) the proper procedures have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.

Here, the Court finds Owners satisfy CCP § 387. Both the Judgment (ROA 338 [§ III(I)(1)]) and CCP § 837 require intervention by parties seeking to pump water subject to a comprehensive adjudication. The Court also notes that the Watermaster supports the granting of the motion.

Regarding the request for Judicial Notice, the request as to Exhibit A and the Judgment is GRANTED. (Evid Code §§ 452(d), 452(h).) As to Exhibit B, the Court declines to rule as the document was not material to the ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.