Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County
6 Cal. App. 5th 1007
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DWR sought precondemnation entry orders under Code Civ. Proc. § 1245.030 to perform environmental and geological testing on over 150 privately owned Delta properties; petitions were coordinated into a single proceeding.
- The trial court bifurcated hearings (environmental then geological), conducted evidentiary hearings, allowed cross-examination of DWR witnesses, and ultimately authorized environmental testing but denied geological testing.
- Before the hearings, landowners requested formal discovery and moved to compel joinder of lessees and reclamation districts as indispensable parties; the trial court denied discovery and concluded indispensible‑party rules did not apply but ordered notice to lessees and reclamation districts.
- This court initially reversed in part; the California Supreme Court reversed and held the precondemnation entry statutes are constitutional as reformed to allow a jury determination of damages, and remanded for consideration of discovery and indispensable‑party claims.
- On remand this court held the trial court erred in ruling the precondemnation petition was exempt from the Civil Discovery Act but found landowners did not demonstrate prejudice; it also held the joinder/indispensable‑party claim was moot because the trial court had ordered the notices the landowners sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether precondemnation entry proceedings are subject to civil discovery | Landowners: No statutory bar; need discovery (including expert) for valuation if a jury trial is invoked | DWR: No express right in statutes; discovery would undermine expedited nature and blur lines with classic condemnation | Court: Proceedings are subject to Civil Discovery Act and Eminent Domain Law practice rules; trial court erred to rule discovery barred, but landowners failed to show prejudice, so affirmed judgment |
| Whether lessees and reclamation districts are indispensable parties requiring joinder | Landowners: Lessees/reclamation districts must be named as indispensable parties | DWR: Not necessary; notice satisfied due process; issue is academic | Court: Joinder objection moot — trial court ordered notice to those entities (they were notified and could participate); no effective relief to grant, so claim dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 151 (Cal. 2016) (holds precondemnation entry statutes constitutional as reformed and treats entry petition as an eminent domain proceeding)
- Toshiba Am. Elec. Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal.App.4th 762 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (standard for appellate review of discovery management discretion)
- People v. Superior Court (Laff), 25 Cal.4th 703 (Cal. 2001) (definition and nature of special proceedings)
- MacQuiddy v. Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC, 233 Cal.App.4th 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (appellant must show prejudicial error from discovery rulings to obtain reversal)