Filed 8/28/23 Westlands Water Dist. Distribution Dist. No. 1 v. All Persons Interested CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT 

DISTRIBUTION DISTRICT NO. 1,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ALL PERSONS INTERESTED etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

F084294

(Super. Ct. No. 20CECG01011)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A.

Gaab, Judge.

Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, Allison E. Burns and Douglas S. Brown for 

Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Office of Roger B. Moore, Roger B. Moore; Law Office of Adam Keats and 

Adam Keats for Defendants and Respondents California Water Impact Network, 

AquAlliance, and Planning and Conservation League.

Mohan Harris Ruiz and S. Dean Ruiz for Defendant and Respondent Central Delta 

Water Agency.

*Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Stephanie L. Clarke and 

Jamey M.B. Volker for Defendants and Respondents North Coast Rivers Alliance, 

Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute for 

Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and San 

Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association

-ooOooAppellant Westlands Water District Distribution District No. 1 (Westlands DD #1) 

seeks review of a motion ruling but concedes the appeal is likely premature. 

Respondents submit, more assertively, that the matter concerns a nonappealable order. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Westlands DD #1, a public agency formed pursuant to Water Code section 36460, 

filed the underlying validation action pursuant to, inter alia, Code of Civil Procedure 

section 860 et seq. The complaint sought a judicial decree regarding the validity of 

multiple contracts between Westlands DD #1 and the federal government. Service of the 

complaint and summons upon “[a]ll persons interested in this matter” was accomplished 

by publication. Two groups of defendants, which included California Water Impact 

Network (CWIN) and North Coast Rivers Alliance (NCRA), joined the action by filing 

verified answers. A third verified answer was filed by the Central Delta Water Agency.1

In September 2021, Westlands DD #1 filed a motion for entry of a validation 

judgment in its favor. Respondents filed opposition papers, and the Fresno Superior 

Court tentatively ruled to deny the motion because the contracts in question were 

1Two respondents’ briefs have been filed in this appeal. The first was jointly submitted 

by CWIN, AquAlliance, Planning and Conservation League, and the Central Delta Water 

Agency. The second was jointly submitted by NCRA, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, California 

Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Institute For Fisheries Resources, Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations, and San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association. Unless otherwise 

specified, these parties are collectively referred to as respondents.
3.

materially incomplete. On November 2, 2021, the motion was argued and taken under 

submission. On November 5, 2021, the superior court issued a minute order adopting its 

tentative ruling.

In April 2022, Westlands DD #1 asked the superior court to vacate or continue a 

then pending trial date of May 9, 2022. Documents filed in support of the request 

showed the parties agreed that a trial was unnecessary in light of the November 2021 

motion ruling. However, Westlands DD #1 was unwilling to stipulate to a proposed 

judgment drafted by respondents. Respondents filed their own request for a status 

conference and submitted a proposed judgment of dismissal to the superior court. In 

response, the superior court vacated the trial date and scheduled a case management 

conference (CMC) for early June.

On May 3, 2022, Westlands DD #1 filed a notice of appeal. On August 15, 2022, 

it filed a motion in this court to “stay all proceedings and briefing in this appeal pending 

the entry of final judgment in the trial court.” The moving papers explained that it filed 

the notice of appeal “[o]ut of an abundance of caution, and in order to preserve its 

appellate rights.” Westlands DD #1 further stated its intention to “file a second notice of 

appeal” if and when the superior court entered a final judgment. In September 2022, the 

motion to stay was denied.

The parties proceeded to brief the appeal, and the reply brief was filed in May of 

this year. In its opening brief, Westlands DD #1 cursorily remarked “that the better 

argument is that the [order denying its motion for a validation judgment] is not a final 

judgment or otherwise appealable.” In respondents’ brief filed by CWIN et al., they 

wrote, “This appeal is premature as the trial court’s denial of [Westlands DD #1’s] 

Motion for Entry of Validation Judgment did not constitute a judgment or other 

appealable order under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1.” Nevertheless, they went 

on to argue the merits of the appeal. North Coast Rivers Alliance et al., did not address 

the issue in their respondents’ brief. None of the parties moved to dismiss the appeal.
4.

Meanwhile, the CMC scheduled for June 2022 was continued but eventually held 

on December 22, 2022. By that time, respondents had filed a motion with the superior 

court for “an [o]rder setting hearing for any party to show cause why [the] matter should 

not be dismissed ....” Westlands DD #1 filed an opposition claiming there was no legal 

basis for the motion. However, in the event the superior court were to consider it, 

Westlands DD #1 argued “it should exercise its inherent powers to sua sponte reconsider 

its November 5, 2021, Minute Order, find it was wrongly decided, and based thereon 

deny [the] motion.” Respondents’ motion was ultimately denied without prejudice.

On July 31, 2023, this court requested supplemental briefing on the issue of 

appealability. In their responses, the parties confirmed the case was still active in the 

Fresno Superior Court. Respondents argued dismissal was required for lack of an 

appealable order. Westlands DD #1 again stated, “[T]he better argument is that [the 

challenged order] is a nonappealable order.”

DISCUSSION

“The existence of an appealable judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an 

appeal. A reviewing court must raise the issue on its own initiative whenever a doubt 

exists as to whether the trial court has entered a final judgment or other order or judgment 

made appealable by Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1.” (Jennings v. Marralle

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126.) “Section 904.1, which codifies the general list of appealable 

judgments and orders, also effectively codifies the common law one-final-judgment rule. 

Under this rule, an appeal lies only from a final judgment that terminates the trial court 

proceedings by completely disposing of the matter in controversy.” (Walton v. Mueller

(2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 161, 172, fn. 9.) “[M]ost interlocutory orders are not 

appealable.” (In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) 51 Cal.4th 751, 754; see Griset v. Fair 

Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696 [“A trial court’s order is appealable 

when it is made so by statute”].)
5.

Here, the challenged ruling is not appealable unless it constitutes a final judgment. 

(See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 577, 904.1, subd. (a).) “‘As a general test, which must be 

adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may be said that where 

no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or noncompliance 

with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final.’” (Griset v. Fair Political Practices 

Com., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 698.) Although the motion for a validation judgment was 

denied on the merits, and nothing seems to indicate the superior court will reconsider its 

ruling sua sponte, the record does not explain why the superior court has yet to enter a 

judgment of dismissal or judgment in favor of respondents. The superior court could 

have signed respondents’ proposed judgment before the notice of appeal was filed, but it 

did not. We thus decline to construe the minute order as a final judgment. (See 

Kinoshita v. Horio (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 959, 967 [“Until a final judgment is rendered 

the trial court may completely obviate an appeal by altering the rulings from which an 

appeal would otherwise have been taken”].)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we order 

the matter be removed from this court’s September 2023 oral argument calendar, and all 

pending requests for judicial notice are denied as moot. The parties shall bear their own 

appellate costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)