2

3
4
5
6

ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE

MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
ROBERT R. MOORE (BAR NO. 113818)
MICHAEL J. BETZ (BAR NO. 196228)
KETAKEE R. KANE (BAR NO. 291828)
Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-407 4
Phone: (415) 837-1515
Fax: (415) 837-1516
E-Mail: rmoore@allerunatkins.com
mbetz@allenmatkins.com
kkane@allenmatkins.com

ELECTRONICALLY

FILED

Superior Court of California,

County of San Francisco

JUN 20 2014
Clerk of the Court
BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, a
California corporation
9
10

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

!I

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

12
13
14
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
15 COMPANY, a California corporation,
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

18 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT;

MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES
19 AGENCY; and DOES 2 through 10, inclusive,

Case No. CGC-13-528312

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY'S VERIFIED ANSWER TO
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MONTEREY
COUNTY WATER RESOURCES
AGENCY

Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:

Oct. 19, 2012

Vacated

Defendant.

20
21

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Cross22 Complainant,

23
24

Cross-Complainant,
v.

25 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY, a California Corporation;
26 MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES
AGENCY; and ROES I through 50, inclusive,
27
Cross-Defendants.
2811------------------------------~
Allen Matkins leek Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP

925258.01/SF

Case No. CGC-13-528312

Verified Answer to Cross-Complaint of Monterey County Water Resources Agency

1
MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES
2 AGENCY, a public agency,
3
4

Cross-Complainant,
v.

5 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT;

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
6 COMPANY, a California corporation; and ZOES
I through I 0, inc! usive,
7
Cross-Defendants.
8 11----------------___J
9
Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant California-American Water Company ("Cal-Am")
10

hereby answers Monterey County Water Resources Agency's (the "Agency") Cross11

Complaint for Declaratory Relief.

12
13

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1.

In answer to paragraph 1, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

2.

In answer to paragraph 2, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

3.

In answer to paragraph 3, Cal-Am admits it is and at all relevant times was, a

14
15

16

Califomia Corporation organized and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the State
17

of Califomia and doing business in Monterey County. Cal-Am also admits it is a privately
18

owned water utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC").
19

Cal-Am admits it owns and operates a water distribution system within Monterey County
20
that provides domestic drinking water to thousands of customers.
21
4.

In answer to paragraph 4, Cal-Am lacks sufficient knowledge or belief to

22

23

know the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph and therefore denies each and
every such allegation.

24

5.

In answer to paragraph 5, Cal-Am admits that on October 20, 2009, the

25

26

Water Board issued a final Cease-and-Desist Order requiring Cal-Am to undertake

additional measures to reduce its diversion of water from the Carmel River by no later than

27

28
V..WOFFICES

-2-

Allen Matkins Leek Gamble

Mallory & Natsis LLP

925258.01/SF

Case No. CGC-13-528312

Verified Answer to Cross-Complaint of Monterey County Water Resources Agency

1 December 31, 2016.

Except as expressly admitted, Cal-Am denies each and every

2 allegation of this paragraph.

3

6.

In answer to paragraph 6, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

7.

In answer to paragraph 7, Cal-Am admits the first and second sentences of

5 this paragraph.

Cal-Am denies the third sentence of this paragraph but admits the

6 Reimbursement Agreement was approved by the CPUC on August 12, 2010, in CPUC
7 Decision No. 10-08-008. Cal-Am admits the fourth and fifth sentence of this paragraph.
8

8.

In answer to paragraph 8, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

9.

In answer to paragraph 9, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

10.

In answer to paragraph I 0, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph

I0

11 but clarifies that Collins was a subconsultant to Marina Coast Water District ("Marina").
12

11.

In answer to paragraph 11, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

13

12.

In answer to paragraph 12, Cal-Am admits the first and second sentence of

14 this paragraph but denies the third sentence of this paragraph. Cal-Am admits that the
15 Markman Report states a court could deny a request to invalidate the Regional
16 Desalination Project ("RDP") Agreements.
17

13.

In answer to paragraph 13, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

18

14.

In answer to paragraph 14, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

19

15.

In answer to paragraph 15, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph,

20 but clarifies that approval of Cal-Am and the Agency's settlement agreement is still
21 pending before the CPUC in Application No. A 13-05-017.
22

16.

In answer to paragraph 16, Cal-Am admits it brought a complaint requesting

23 declaratory relief with regards to whether the RDP Agreements were void or valid.
24

17.

In answer to paragraph 17, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

25

18.

In answer to paragraph 18, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

26

19.

In answer to paragraph 19, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

27

20.

In answer to paragraph 20, Cal-Am denies the allegations in this paragraph.

28

21.

In answer to paragraph 21, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

LAW OFFICES

Allen Matkins leek Gamble

Ma!IOI)' & Natsis LLP

925258.01/SF

-3Case No. CGC-13-528312

Verified Answer to Cross-Complaint of Monterey County Water Resources Agency

22.

In answer to paragraph 22, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph

2 and contends an actual controversy has arisen and presently exists between Marina and
3 Cal-Am with regards to Marina's position regarding the validity of the RDP Agreements
4 for which Cal-Am has been trying to seek a judicial resolution. There also exists an actual

5 controversy as to what the parties' rights and duties are if the RDP Agreements are
6 declared void pursuant to the Agency's cross-complaint. Specifically, Marina claims that

7 the RDP Agreements may be found void as to the Agency and valid as to Cal-Am. Cal8 Am claims that if the RDP Agreements are void as to the Agency, the RDP Agreements
9 are void as to all parties.

10

23.

In answer to paragraph 23, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

11

24.

In answer to paragraph 24, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

12

25.

In answer to paragraph 25, Cal-Am admits the allegations in this paragraph.

13

14 Dated: June 20, 2014

15
16
17

ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE

MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
ROBERT R. MOORE
MICHAEL J. BETZ
KETAKEE R. KANE
By:

18

19

Is/ Robert R. Moore

ROBERT R. MOORE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY, a California corporation

20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27

28
LAW OFFICES

Allen Matkins Leek Gamble

Mallory & Natsls LLP

925258.01/SF

-4Case No. CGC-13-528312

Verified Answer to Cross-Complaint of Monterey County Water Resources Agency

l
2

VERIFICATION
I am President of California-American Water Company, a party to this action, and

3 am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing
4 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY'S VERIFIED ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF
5 MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY and know its contents. I am informed
6 and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in that document are true.
7

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

8 foregoing is true and correct.

9

Dated: June 20, 2013

10
ROBERT G. MACLEAN

11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27

28
LAW OFFICES

-5-

Allen Matkins Leek Gamble

Mallory & Natsis LLP

925258.01/SF

Case No. CGC-13-528312

Verified Answer to Cross-Complaint of Monterey County Water Resources Agency