Water Replenishment Dist. v. City of Cerritos
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 2/8/2012 CERFIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT WATER REPLENISHMENT DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Appellant; v. CITY OF CERRITOS et al., Defendants and Respondents; B226743 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. C786656) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITIONS FOR REHEARING NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT CITY OF LAKEWOOD et al., Defendants and Appellants; CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Intervener and Respondent. THE COURT: The opinion herein, filed on January 18, 2012, is modified as follows: 1. On page 4, line 2, and the California Water Service Company, is deleted so that the sentence beginning on page 3, line 25, reads: Other appellants are the Cities of Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Huntington Park and Vernon as well as the Golden State Water Company. 2. On page 4, footnote 2 is deleted. The following footnote is inserted in its place: We distinguish between respondents in the text only when necessary. In their brief, Cities of Cerritos, Downey, and Signal Hill argued (1) the court does not have jurisdiction over rights and management over the use of storage space; (2) the court does not have jurisdiction over interbasin transfers; and (3) the order denying the 2009 motion is not appealable. In its brief, CBMWD argued: (1) Water Code section 60231 and Government Code sections 56824.10-56824.14 are applicable and required WRD to investigate whether its duties could be accomplished by an existing agency to avoid duplication; and (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgment as requested by appellants. The modification does not affect the judgment. Respondent Central Basin Municipal Water District s petition for rehearing and Respondents Cities of Cerritos, Downey and Signal Hill s petition for rehearing are denied. BIGELOW, P. J. RUBIN, J. FLIER, J.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
