220 Cal. App. 4th 1450
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Groundwater overdraft in Central and West Coast Basins led to Water Replenishment District formation in 1959 to replenish supplies for Los Angeles County residents.
- District levies annual groundwater-replenishment assessments; City Cerritos, along with nearby cities, challenged these assessments under Proposition 218 in a separate lawsuit.
- In 2011 Judge Chalfant ruled Proposition 218 applies and directed the District to vacate past assessments before imposing new ones; no writ issued until final judgment on damages claims.
- District filed a new action (Feb 2012) seeking delinquent assessment collection and injunction under Water Code §60339 to stop Cerritos from producing groundwater until assessments are paid.
- City stopped paying after the April 2011 order and argued it would litigate the assessment’s validity in the Proposition 218 Lawsuit; District sought preliminary injunction to enjoin production pending final judgment.
- Trial court denied the injunction; District appeals arguing the statutory and constitutional pay-first rule justifies injunction during pendency of the Proposition 218 Lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §60339 authorizes a groundwater injunction for delinquency | District seeks injunction under §60339 | City opposes, arguing improper use of injunction | Yes, §60339 authorizes injunction against delinquent producer |
| Whether pay-first, litigate-later applies to this local district dispute | District and statute require prepayment while litigation proceeds | City argues doctrine may be limited to state or certain cases | Yes, applies; Cerritos must pay or stop production pending final judgment |
| Whether public policy favors delaying refunds over sustaining production | District needs funds to avoid overdraft and service impacts | City emphasizes public funds preservation and potential refund | Public policy favors payment to preserve District operations; injunction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, 35 Cal.3d 63 (Cal. 1983) (public injunctive relief considerations in statutory schemes)
- Riverside County Community Facilities Dist. v. Bainbridge, 77 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. App. 1999) (prepayment adjudication barred when it would prevent collection of taxes)
- Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.4th 241 (Cal. 2011) (Government Code §910 refunds; pay-first rationale applies to local entities)
- California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California, 161 Cal.App.4th 242 (Cal. App. 2008) (pay-first, litigate-later doctrine extends to taxes and similar charges)
- Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 77 Cal.App.4th 475 (Cal. App. 2000) (strong public-policy against enjoining collection of taxes; sue for refund later)
- Batt v. City and County of San Francisco, 155 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. App. 2007) (pay-first doctrine applies to local government; broad public-policy)