Filed 8/15/23 Cal. Regional Water Quality Control etc. v. Balcom Ranch CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL 

WATER QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD OF LOS ANGELES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BALCOM RANCH,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Civil No. B313543

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2017-

00505151-CU-JR-VTA)

(Ventura County)

Balcom Ranch, a general partnership, purports to appeal 

an order of the Superior Court finding it in contempt after it 

failed to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board of Los Angeles 

(the Water Board). Conceding the contempt order is not 

appealable, Balcom Ranch urges us to treat the notice of appeal 

as a petition for writ of mandamus. Balcom Ranch waited more 

than two years after the Superior Court’s contempt order to seek

writ or appellate review and has not shown any extraordinary 
2

circumstances justifying the delay. In light of this unreasonable 

delay, we decline to exercise our discretion to treat the notice of 

appeal as a petition for writ of mandate and, accordingly, dismiss 

the appeal.

Facts and Procedural History

Balcom Ranch is a general partnership that owns a 

commercial citrus grove and row crop farm in Santa Paula. The 

Water Board requires commercial irrigated farming operations 

like Balcom Ranch to monitor and test the waste water they 

discharge. Farming operations are required to submit a Notice of 

Intent that details their plan to conduct the tests individually or

as part of a “Discharger Group.” In late 2007, the Water Board 

issued a notice of violation to Balcom Ranch because it had failed 

to comply with requirements for testing its waste water 

discharge. Balcom Ranch did not respond to the notice or 

indicate its intent to comply with the requirements.

The Water Board issued an administrative civil liability 

complaint (ACL) against Balcom Ranch in early 2010. In July 

2011, after an administrative hearing, the Water Board’s hearing 

panel determined that Balcom Ranch had violated California 

Water Code, § 13260 by failing to comply with the waste 

discharge requirements. It assessed a penalty of $193,850 

against Balcom Ranch. 

Balcom Ranch filed a petition in the Superior Court for a 

peremptory writ, arguing the proposed penalty was so excessive 

that it violated due process. In particular, Balcom Ranch 

objected that, in calculating the penalty, the Water Board had 

failed to consider its ability to pay the penalty and remain in 

business. The Superior Court granted the writ, vacating the 

penalty and remanding the matter to the Water Board to hold an 
3

administrative hearing at which it would reconsider Balcom 

Ranch’s ability to pay a civil penalty. 

The Water Board’s prosecution team issued a revised ACL

recommending a penalty of $51,045. It also issued a subpoena 

duces tecum to Balcom Ranch and three of its partners, requiring 

the production of financial records, the partnership agreement 

and related organizational documents, and documents related to 

property owned by the partnership. The prosecution team stated 

these documents were required to confirm that Balcom Ranch

had the ability to pay the penalty. Balcom Ranch objected to the 

subpoena on several procedural grounds and asserted a right to

privacy in the financial records and partnership documents called 

for. It declined to produce responsive documents without a 

protective order.

The parties engaged in negotiations over the terms of a 

protective order but were unable to agree. In October 2016, the 

Water Board’s hearing panel overruled most of Balcom Ranch’s 

objections but granted its motion to quash production of its tax 

returns. The hearing panel rejected the proposed protective 

order and directed Balcom Ranch to produce responsive 

documents by November 2016. 

Balcom Ranch failed to produce any documents in response 

to the Water Board’s order. On March 1, 2017, the hearing panel 

issued a contempt citation to Balcom Ranch. It then moved to 

enforce the citation in the Superior Court. In a July 2018 

tentative ruling, the Superior Court overruled Balcom Ranch’s 

objections to the subpoena and found it in contempt. 

In February 2019, nearly two years after the Water Board 

issued its contempt citation, the Superior Court confirmed the 

citation by entering an Order re Contempt. The order includes
4

findings that the Water Board’s subpoena was “authorized, 

lawful and valid,” that its decision to deny a protective order was 

“lawful and valid” and that Balcom Ranch had failed “[w]ithout 

substantial justification” to comply with the subpoena. The 

Superior Court concluded that Balcom Ranch’s refusal to comply 

with the subpoena “constitutes contempt.” Because Balcom 

Ranch was “guilty of contempt,” the Superior Court ordered that 

Balcom Ranch, through its partner Mark Brown, be imprisoned 

until it responded to the subpoena. It further ordered Balcom 

Ranch to pay both a $1,000 fine and the Water Board’s 

“reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with 

this contempt proceeding.” 

Balcom Ranch responded to the subpoena and denied 

possessing many of the documents called for in it. Among other 

things, Balcom Ranch asserted that it did not possess a written 

partnership agreement or other documents describing the rights 

and responsibilities of its partners, nor did it possess any 

documents relating to an appraisal of its real property. It stated 

it would produce other documents, including state and federal tax 

returns and related schedules for a limited number of years, 

“pursuant to an executed protective order.” 

In April 2019, the Superior Court entered a protective 

order governing Balcom Ranch’s production of confidential 

materials in the contempt action and the revised ACL proceeding. 

It noted the Water Board’s jurisdictional objections and specified 

that the protective order did not invalidate or modify the Board’s 

contempt citation. Balcom Ranch and its partners filed amended 

responses to the subpoena in which they agreed to produce tax 

returns and related documents for the years 2011 through 2017 

and denied the existence of other documents described in the 
5

subpoena. Balcom Ranch refused to produce documents relating 

to its current ability to pay a penalty. The partners also refused

to provide affidavits verifying their responses, as required by the 

subpoenas, contending the affidavits were unnecessary. At a 

status conference in June 2019, the Superior Court concluded 

that, once the affidavits were supplied, Balcom Ranch would have 

“substantially complied” with the subpoenas. 

In August 2020, the Water Board filed a motion to set the 

amount of its attorney’s fees award as provided in the February 

2019 Contempt Order. The Superior Court granted that motion, 

awarding the Water Board attorney’s fees of $167,400. Judgment 

was entered against Balcom Ranch on April 22, 2021. The 

judgment states, “For the reasons stated in the attached 

Contempt Order, Balcom Ranch is guilty of contempt.” It further 

orders Balcom Ranch to “pay $167,400 to [the Water Board], 

which amount represents the attorney’s fees reasonably incurred 

by the Board in connection with this proceeding.” Balcom Ranch 

filed its notice of appeal on July 12, 2021. 

Discussion

A judgment or order of contempt is not appealable. (People 

v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816; Imuta v. Nakano (1991) 

233 Cal.App.3d 1570, 1584, fn. 18.) It may, however, “be 

reviewed by certiorari or, where appropriate, by habeas corpus[.]” 

(In re Buckley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 237, 259; see also, People v. 

Gonzalez, supra, at p. 816 [“review of the contempt judgment is 

by extraordinary writ”].)

Balcom Ranch acknowledges, as it must, that the contempt 

order is not appealable. It requests that we exercise our 

discretion to treat the notice of appeal as a writ petition. 

Although we have discretion to do so, that discretion is exercised 
6

sparingly and only in unusual circumstances. (Black Diamond 

Asphalt, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 109, 114; 

see also Podiatric Medical Board of California v. Superior Court

(2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 657, 666 [court of appeal exercises 

“unusual power” to treat unauthorized appeal as a writ petition].)

We decline to exercise it here because no unusual or 

extraordinary circumstances exist.

First, the length of the delay was unreasonable. Balcom 

Ranch filed its notice of appeal on July 12, 2021, more than two 

years after the Superior Court entered the contempt order on 

February 6, 2019. As a general rule, a writ petition should be 

filed within the 60-day period applicable to appeals. (Citizens for 

Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 

310.) “‘An appellate court may consider a petition for an 

extraordinary writ at any time [citation], but has discretion to 

deny a petition filed after the 60-day period applicable to appeals, 

and should do so absent “extraordinary circumstances” justifying 

the delay.’” (Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 

94 Cal.App.4th 695, 701; see also People v. Superior Court (Brent) 

(1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 675, 682.)

Balcom Ranch contends it delayed seeking review until 

judgment was entered because it was not aware that a contempt 

order could be reviewed only by writ. But this mistake of law is

neither reasonable nor an extraordinary circumstance justifying 

the delay. The answer to the appealability question was readily 

available through review of the relevant statutes and case law.

In addition, both the Water Board and the trial court informed 

appellant that the contempt order was reviewable by writ. 

Before the trial court entered its contempt order, the Water 

Board stated in a reply brief that “a judgment of contempt is not 
7

appealable.” The trial court also noted, at three separate 

hearings, that Balcom Ranch could seek writ review of the 

contempt order. 

Balcom Ranch asserts that it saw no need to petition for 

writ review in February 2019 because it believed the contempt 

order would be dissolved after it produced responsive documents. 

This explanation is unpersuasive. The trial court never 

suggested it would dissolve the contempt citation upon 

compliance. Even if the threat of jail time evaporated after 

compliance, the contempt citation, the fine and the order to pay 

attorney’s fees and costs would remain. Moreover, dissolution of 

the contempt order after compliance would have left unresolved 

the question whether Balcom Ranch had a right to privacy that 

justified its initial refusal to comply with the subpoena. The 

existence of this issue gave Balcom Ranch a reason to seek review 

at the earliest possible opportunity, not a justification for 

extreme delay. 

Conclusion

Balcom Ranch has not identified any extraordinary 

circumstance that justifies its delay in seeking review of the 

contempt citation or supports the exercise of our discretion to 

treat its inoperative notice of appeal as a petition for writ of 

mandate. The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the Water Board.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. BALTODANO, J.
Ronda J. McKaig, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Niddrie, Addams, Fuller, Singh and Rupa G. Singh; Leech, 

Tishman, Fuscaldo & Lampl and Fadi K. Rasheed, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Assistant 

Attorney General, Eric M. Katz, Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General, Carol A.Z. Boyd, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff 

and Respondent.