4 Cal. App. 5th 356
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jamison owns a 68-acre parcel (Alpers Ranch) crossed by State Route 49 (SR 49) right-of-way; he owns the underlying fee but the highway easement belongs to the public and is controlled by Caltrans.
- Lemon Creek flows under SR 49 through a culvert; Jamison holds water rights to Lemon Creek under a 1940 judicial decree and uses boards/blocks at a downstream ditch culvert in the SR 49 right-of-way to raise creek level and gravity-irrigate his parcel.
- In March 2013 Jamison placed blocks in the SR 49 right-of-way culvert mouth for several months annually; Caltrans removed the obstructions twice as unauthorized encroachments.
- Jamison sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to bar Caltrans from removing the blocks; the trial court granted a preliminary injunction allowing seasonal blocking (Mar 15–Oct 15) unless flooding or risk of flooding occurred.
- On appeal Caltrans argued the injunction improperly restrained Caltrans from performing its statutory duties to control encroachments in the state highway right-of-way.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding Jamison could not show an exception to the statutory rule barring injunctions that prevent officers from executing a public statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jamison could enjoin Caltrans from removing his blocks in the SR 49 right-of-way | Jamison: his blocks do not constitute an encroachment requiring a permit; his fee and water rights allow him to use the right-of-way to secure delivery of his water | Caltrans: blocks are an encroachment; Caltrans has statutory duty and authority to control/remove encroachments and to require permits | Held for Caltrans: blocks are an encroachment; Jamison must seek a permit and cannot enjoin Caltrans from performing its statutory duties |
| Whether the court may enjoin execution of a public statute here | Jamison: exceptions apply (statute does not reach him; Caltrans exceeded authority) | Caltrans: injunction improperly prevents execution of public statute absent an applicable exception | Held: No applicable exception (plaintiff cannot show statute inapplicable or that Caltrans exceeded authority); injunction improper |
| Whether Jamison’s ownership of fee or water rights trumps Caltrans’s authority | Jamison: fee ownership and 1940 decree entitle him to block culvert to achieve required water level | Caltrans: fee ownership does not grant greater rights than the public; decree does not authorize blocking state-owned right-of-way | Held: Fee and water rights do not authorize maintaining obstructions in the state highway right-of-way without permit |
| Whether preliminary injunction was proper on likelihood-of-success standard | Jamison: likely to prevail because decree grants water rights and decree does not specify diversion point | Caltrans: as a matter of law Jamison cannot prevail because statutory scheme requires permits and bars injuncting execution of public statutes here | Held: As a matter of law Jamison cannot show likelihood of success; injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Henderson, 85 Cal.App.2d 653 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Caltrans authority to keep highways free from encroachments)
- Alfaro v. Terhune, 98 Cal.App.4th 492 (Cal. Ct. App.) (exceptions to prohibition on enjoining execution of public statutes)
- Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster Ry. Co., 104 Cal. 186 (Cal.) (establishment of public highway limits fee owner’s rights)
- Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal.4th 668 (Cal.) (preliminary injunction requires some possibility of ultimate success on merits)
- Schmidt v. Bank of America, N.A., 223 Cal.App.4th 1489 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussion of modern scope of public rights-of-way and fee owner limits)