IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA , LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY , Respondent: ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest: “…the contents of an invoice are privileged only if they either communicate information for the purpose of legal consultation or risk exposing information that was communicated for such a purpose. This latter category includes any invoice that reflects work in active and ongoing litigation.”

ABSTRACT:  RE: SQUIDFRY 11.08.18: Money Tree

“Councilmember Bobby Richards asked for a detailed explanation of the $36K and got none. Assistant City Attorney Jon Giffen explained that Mozingo feels strongly that the city does not have to reveal details about legal expenditures, based on a 2016 California State Supreme Court decision stating that public agencies can keep payment details secret, claiming attorney-client privilege.” Accordingly, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent: ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest, (Filed 12/29/16), document copy is embedded. Author, CUÉLLAR, J. ; CONCUR: CHIN, J. , LIU, J. , KRUGER, J.; DISSENT: WERDEGAR, J. Selected excepts include: This case implicates both the public’s interest in transparency and a public agency’s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel. The specific question we must resolve is whether invoices for work on currently pending litigation sent to the County of Los Angeles by an outside law firm are within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and therefore exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (PRA; Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.). What we hold is that the attorney-client privilege does not categorically shield everything in a billing invoice from PRA disclosure. But invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heartland of the privilege. The privilege therefore protects the confidentiality of invoices for work in pending and active legal matters. CONCLUSION The imperative of protecting privileged communications between attorney and client –– and thereby promoting full and frank discussion between them –– is a defining feature of our law. This imperative does not require us to conclude — as the Court of Appeal did here — that everything in a public agency’s invoices for legal services is categorically privileged. Instead, the contents of an invoice are privileged only if they either communicate information for the purpose of legal consultation or risk exposing information that was communicated for such a purpose. This latter category includes any invoice that reflects work in active and ongoing litigation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion.

Filed 12/29/16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY , Respondent: ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Real Parties in Interest.
S226645
Ct. App. 2/3 B257230
Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BS145753

REFERENCES:
Case Summary
Supreme Court Case:
S226645
Supreme Court Opinion:
[PDF] [DOC]
Court of Appeal Case(s):
Second Appellate District, Div. 3
B257230
Case Caption: LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. S.C. (ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA)
Case Category: Review - Civil Appeal
Start Date: 05/26/2015
Case Status: closed; remittitur issued
Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are invoices for legal services sent to the County of Los Angeles by outside counsel within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, even with all references to attorney opinions, advice and similar information redacted?
Disposition Date: 12/29/201

Attorney Invoices are Subject to Disclosure under the Public Records Act
January 12th, 2017
Lozano Smith

Proceeding Number A.13-05-017 RESPONSE BY PUBLIC WATER NOW IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING EVIDENCE, SETTING ASIDE DECISIONS AND ESTABLISHING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAND OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (No. S230728) DIRECTING THE COMMISSION’S RECONSIDERATION

ABSTRACT:  RE: In the Matter of the Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for an Order (1) Approving a Settlement Agreement with the County of Monterey and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to Settle and Resolve Claims and Issues Between the Parties and to Promote the Development, Construction and Operation of a Water Supply Project for Monterey County on an Expedited Basis, and (2) Authorizing the Transfer of Authorized Costs Related to the Settlement Agreement to Its Special Request 1 Surcharge Balancing Account, the RESPONSE BY PUBLIC WATER NOW IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING EVIDENCE, SETTING ASIDE DECISIONS AND ESTABLISHING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAND OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (No. S230728) DIRECTING THE COMMISSION’S RECONSIDERATION document copy is embedded.  PWN Supports MCWD Motion for Reconsidertion PWN believes the proceeding was inefficient, incomplete and unnecessarily convuloted with the redacted portions. Even within the nondisclosure portion of the proceeding, the review of redacted material was also incomplete and confusing. In other words, the confidential portion was essentially a continuation of the public portion with the refusal to reveal facts. 

It is my opinion that the intent to reveal selected information within confidential hearings actually did not reveal addditional infomation to the ALJ. The ALJ did not gain any new insight throughout the confidential portion of the hearing. In fact she commented on that point.

It is the opinion of PWN that the ALJ Proposed Decision was not based on a full revelation of facts for the record. PWN believes further that the Commission decision was equally faulty from lack of full information on the record.

PWN supported MCWD in its initial appeal the the State Supreme Court. PWN continues to support MCWD in its effort to create a fair and complete public record in this matter.
Recommendation Public Water Now supports the MCWD Motion for Reconsidertion.

Response by Pwn in Support of Mcwd's Motion 7-14-17 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

FILED 7-14-17
RESPONSE BY PUBLIC WATER NOW IN SUPPORT OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNSEALING EVIDENCE, SETTING ASIDE DECISIONS AND ESTABLISHING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON REMAND OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW FROM THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (No. S230728) DIRECTING THE COMMISSION’S RECONSIDERATION

California Supreme Court Opinion, Supreme Court Case S218066, Conclusion: ‘Consistent with the Legislature‟s purpose in enacting CPRA, and our constitutional mandate to interpret the Act broadly in favor of public access (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), we hold that a city employee's writings about public business are not excluded from CPRA simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.’

ABSTRACT: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent (S218066), an unanimous seven-member court, including Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, who wrote the opinion, Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu, Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Associate Justice Leondra R. Kruger reversed the judgment, and “the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are written communications pertaining to city business, including email and text messages, which (a) are sent or received by public officials and employees on their private electronic devices using their private accounts, (b) are not stored on city servers, and (c) are not directly accessible by the city, "public records" within the meaning of the California Public Records Act? In writing the opinion, Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote “Conclusion Consistent with the Legislature‟s purpose in enacting CPRA, and our constitutional mandate to interpret the Act broadly in favor of public access (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), we hold that a city employee‟s writings about public business are not excluded from CPRA simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.” (March 2, 2017) The Supreme Court Opinion for Supreme Court Case S218066 document copy is embedded. Importantly, “The City’s interpretation would allow evasion of CPRA simply by the use of a personal account. We are aware of no California law requiring that public officials or employees use only government accounts to conduct public business. If communications sent through personal accounts were categorically excluded from CPRA, government officials could hide their most sensitive, and potentially damning, discussions in such accounts. The City’s interpretation “would not only put an increasing amount of information beyond the public’s grasp but also encourage government officials to conduct the public’s business in private.””

s 218066 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent

S218066

Ct.App. 6 H039498

Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. 109CV15042

CORRIGAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

WERDEGAR, J.

CHIN, J.

LIU, J.

CUÉLLAR, J.

KRUGER, J.

REFERENCES:
Calif. High Court Extends Public Records Law to Personal Devices
MARIA DINZEO March 2, 2017 Courthouse News Service

Case Summary

California American Water Company, Castroville Community Services District, Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Monterey County Farm Bureau & Land Watch ‘Deal’ ‘Illegal’

ABSTRACT: In a Guest Commentary entitled "Groundwater agreement illegal," The Monterey County Herald (01/16/16), Bill Hood, former executive director of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, states “…Jim Johnson reported on a “deal” reached between Cal Am, the Castroville Community Services District, the Salinas Valley Water Coalition, the Monterey County Farm Bureau, and Land Watch, whereby the utility will transfer a guaranteed amount of desalinated water whose intake source admittedly contains some amount of water extracted from an existing Salinas Valley groundwater aquifer.” “As a new appropriator, by law, Cal Am (nor the CCSD) cannot legally go forward with what is proposed.” Consider these facts:

• A 1975 California Supreme Court decision stated that, once a groundwater basin reaches a condition of overdraft, no new “appropriative” uses may be lawfully made;
• An August 2015 Bulletin issued by the California Department of Water Resources identifies a northern segment of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin, from Moss Landing to south of Salinas, as critically overdrafted;
• A report issued a year earlier by the California Water Foundation concludes that “groundwater basins in the Monterey and Salinas Valley are in a state of long-term overdraft”;
• A person or entity extracting groundwater and who is not an “overlyer” (meaning does not own the land directly overlying the basin at the point of extraction) is considered an “appropriator”; and
• Cal Am, who is neither the owner of the land overlying that part of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin where it will be extracting source water for its desal plant nor has ownership of that water, thus becomes a “new appropriator”; and
• The Castroville Community Services District, as a public agency, also owns no land or rights to the water, and upon delivery of the water would also be classified as a new appropriator.
“Failure to do due diligence, while perhaps understandable, is still no excuse. It is in no one’s short- or long-term interests to actually implement an illegal agreement.”

REFERENCES:
HISTORY OF ULARA (UPPER LOS ANGELES RIVER AREA WATERMASTER) ADJUDICATION

City of Los Angeles vs City of San Fernando Et Al JUDGMENT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, et al., Defendants.
No. 650079
JUDGMENT
January 26, 1979

City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando , 14 Cal.3d 199
[L.A. No. 30119. Supreme Court of California. May 12, 1975.]
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN FERNANDO et al., Defendants and Respondents
In Bank. (Opinion by Wright, C. J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.)

GW BasinsCriticalOverdraft S-CentralRegion Draft5 CM

Critically Overdrafted Basins

Central California Draft Map

CALIFORNIA WATER FOUNDATIONCentral Coast Groundwater: Seawater Intrusion and Other Issues

PETITION FOR REVIEW: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Real Party In Interest. The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No. 13-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012, The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner

ABSTRACT:  RE: California Supreme Court Case S208838, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY), the California Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion as early as June 2015 on the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?  PETITION FOR REVIEW (Dated: February 22, 2013), Appendix Volume 1, Appendix Volume 2 and Appendix Volume 3 documents are embedded. ARGUMENTS include Petitioner Possesses Express Legislative Authority to Levy Taxes and Fees and to Collect User Fees through Utility Bills Issued by Cal-Am, The Commission Has No Jurisdiction Over Petitioner and Public Utilities Code Section 451 Does Not Vest the Commission With Jurisdiction to Review and Reject Charges Imposed By Government Entities and Collected Through a Utility Bill.   CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant this Petition for Review. Alternatively, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant review and transfer to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings.

Petition for Review (x149365)

PETITION FOR REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Petitioner, v. California Public Utilities Commission, Respondent, California-American Water Company, Real Party in Interest
The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No.B-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012 The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner
Dated: February 22, 2013

Appendix VOL 1 of 3 (X149366)

APPPENDIX VOLUME 1 0F 3

Appendix VOL 2 of 3 (X149367).pdf

 APPPENDIX VOLUME 2 0F 3

Appendix VOL 3 of 3 (X149368).pdf

APPPENDIX VOLUME 3 0F 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Real Party In Interest. The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No. 13-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012 The Honorable Maribeth A. Bushey, Administrative Law Judge Presiding Commissioner Michael R. Peevey, Assigned Commissioner

ABSTRACT:  RE:  California Supreme Court Case S208838, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY), the California Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion as early as June 2015 on the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility? The California Public Utilities Commission, Decisions No. 11-03-035 and No. 13-01-040 in Proceeding No. Application 10-01-012 and the document IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U 210 W) FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USER FEE are embedded. Additionally, briefs, including PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW (PENDING) MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW, REAL PARTY'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW and REPLY OF PETITIONER MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT documents are embedded.

Decision 11-03-035

Decision 11-03-035 March 24, 2011

DECISION DENYING APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION

Decision 13-01-040

Decision 13-01-040 January 24, 2013

ORDER MODIFYING DECISION (D.) 11-03-035 AND DENYING REHEARING, AS MODIFIED

A1001012 User Fee Application

Filing Date 01-05-10

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (U 210 W) FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USER FEE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW (PENDING)

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

02/25/2013

s208838 Answer of the Respondent to Petition for Writ of Review 04-02-13

Filing Date April 2, 2013

ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW

s208838 Real Party's Answer to Petition 03-29-13

Filing Date April 2, 2013

REAL PARTY'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW

S208838 REPLY OF PETITIONER MPWMD 04-29-13.pdf

Filing Date April 29, 2013

REPLY OF PETITIONER MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REFERENCES:

Supreme Court to rule on water district ‘user fee,’ By KELLY NIX, The Carmel Pine Cone, March 13, 2015, 1A & 14A

ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL CASES
Monterey Peninsula Water Dist. v. Public Utilities Com., S208838. Original proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?

Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of June 24, 2013
#13-54
Monterey Peninsula Water Dist. v. Public Utilities Com., S208838. Original proceeding. This case presents the following issue: Does the Public Utilities Commission have the authority to review and regulate a user fee imposed by a local government entity that is collected through the bills of a regulated public utility?

SUPREME COURT MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
S208838
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATERMANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY)
Petition for review granted
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Werdegar, Corrigan, and Liu, JJ

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 21, AFL-CIO et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; CONTRA COSTA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest, S134253, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ABSTRACT:  Re: “In 2005, we sued Oakland to force it to disclose the salaries of government workers. The California Supreme Court eventually ruled unanimously for disclosure; it’s been called the most significant open-government victory in the state in a generation,” according to Thomas Peele, an investigative reporter for the Contra Costa Times and lecturer of public records at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism as reported in The Carmel Pine Cone news article entitled “Stilwell: Most secretive gov’t. official in state?” By MARY SCHLEY, June 20, 2014. Peele is also co-chair of the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter, Freedom of Information Committee.
“Thomas Peele is an investigative reporter for the Bay Area News Group and the Chauncey Bailey Project. He is a 25-year veteran of newspapers on both coasts. His many honors include Investigative and Editors Tom Renner Award and Columbia University’s Paul Tobekin Memorial Award. He was a 2009 finalist for the Medill Medal for Courage in Journalism. Peele specializes in public records and public accountability reporting. He routinely writes enterprise stories about government malfeasance and corruption. He also writes a monthly column, The Watchdog, on government transparency and freedom of the press. Before joining the Contra Costa Times in 2000, Peele was a staff writer for the Atlantic City Press in New Jersey where he covered government corruption and organized crime. He has also has worked for newspapers in New Jersey, New York and begin his career at Newsday as a prep sportswriter while a college student.”
“Peele holds an MFA in Writing from the University of San Francisco. His first book, Killing the Messenger, is scheduled to be published by Random House in 2011.”

Source: Berkeley Journalism, UC BERKELEY/GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM, People, Lecturers & Fellows

The California Supreme Court Case, namely INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 21, AFL-CIO et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; CONTRA COSTA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest, S134253, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 42 Cal. 4th 319; 165 P.3d 488; 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693; 2007 Cal. LEXIS 8918; 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 940; 35 Media L. Rep. 2590, August 27, 2007, Filed, is embedded.

ADDENDUM:
THOMAS PEELE
Investigative Journalist – Writer - Educator
Thomaspeele.com
Curriculum Vitae

About Thomas Peele

California Supreme Court Opinion S134253 2007

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 21, AFL-CIO et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; CONTRA COSTA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Real Parties in Interest
S134253
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
42 Cal. 4th 319; 165 P.3d 488; 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693; 2007 Cal. LEXIS 8918; 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 940; 35 Media L. Rep. 2590
August 27, 2007, Filed
CALIFORNIA COURTS
THE OFFICIAL CASE LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LexisNexis

Supreme Court of California INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 21, AFL-CIO et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Alameda County, Respondent; Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. S134253. Decided: August 27, 2007

REFERENCES:
Stilwell: Most secretive gov’t. official in state?
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, June 20, 2014, 1A, 12A

CONTRA COSTA TIMES

Court OKs right to know public pay
By Thomas Peele
STAFF WRITER, 08/27/2007

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Supreme Court Case Number S204634

ABSTRACT: California Supreme Court, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Case Number S204634, Petition for Review, Answer to Petition for Review and Reply to Answer to Petition for Review documents are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied. And 6th Appellate District, Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court, Case Number H038167, Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and Amicus Curiae Brief Armstrong Family are embedded. Disposition: Petition summarily denied by order.

California Supreme Court 

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST) 

Case Number S204634 

Disposition: Petition for review denied, 12 September 2012

S204634 Petition for Review

Petition for Review

S204634 Answer to Petition for Review

Answer to Petition for Review

S204634 Reply to Answer

Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

6th Appellate District 

Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court 

Case Number H038167 

Disposition: Petition summarily denied by order, 2 August 2012

h038167 Amicus Curiae Monterey Santa Cruz Counties Building and Construction Trades Council

Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties Building & Construction Trades Council

h038167 Amicus Curiae Armstrong Family

Amicus Curiae Brief Armstrong Family

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), California Supreme Court Case Number S192285

ABSTRACT: California Supreme Court, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Case Number S192285, Petition for Review, Answer to Petition for Review and Reply to Answer to Petition for Review documents are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied. And 6th Appellate District, Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (Ag Land Trust), Case Number H036084, Amicus Curiae Brief California Public Utilities Commission, Amicus Curiae Brief Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Seaside, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks and Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey County Water Resource Agency are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied.

California Supreme Court

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST)

Case Number S192285

Disposition: Petition for review denied, 18 May 2011

S192285 Petition for Review

Petition for Review

S192285 Answer to Petition for Review

Answer to Petition for Review

S192285 Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

6^th Appellate District

Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (Ag Land Trust)

Case Number H036084

Disposition:  Petition summarily denied by order, 6 April 2011

h036084 Amicus Curiae Cpuc

Amicus Curiae Brief California Public Utilities Commission

h036084 Amicus Curiae Cities

Amicus Curiae Brief Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Seaside, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks

h036084 Amicus Curiae Mcwra

Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey County Water Resource Agency