HomeMy WebLinkAboutBroussal vs. TDPUD __ ..... ........ .._.
Law Offices of S. Chandler Visher
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 901-0500
Facsimile: (415) 901-0504
January 9, 2006 t EC , p 4 LL
Steven C. Gross, Esq.
Porter & Simon
40200 Truckee Airport Rd.
Truckee, CA 96161
Re: Broussal v. Truckee Donner Public Utilities District
Nevada County Superior Court Case No. T05/1947C
Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt
Dear Mr. Gross:
I understand that you have agreed to accept service of the summons and
complaint on behalf of your client Truckee Donner Public Utilities District. Enclosed
please find the summons and complaint, Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt, along
with the various court documents received re: case management and ADR. Please sign
the Notice and Acknowledgment and return to this office within twenty (20) days of
today's date.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kathryn L. Anderson
Enclosure
s
s
ATTORNEY OR PARTY AiTHOUT ATTORNEY(Name,$tote Bar dumbe5 antl aJamss): POS-01 rJ
S. Chandl r Vi he State Bar No 529577 FORCOURTUSEONLY
—LAW OFIRICF-S 6F S. CHANDLER VISHER
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
San Francisco, California 94104
TELEPHONENo_415/901,0500 1NO tor#�«�n 415/901.0504 � ��
EMAIL AOORE55;Optionaq:
ATTORNEY FOR(Nal Plaintiff John Broussal
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF NEVADA
STREET ADDRESS:10075 Levon Avenue, Suite 301
MAILING ADDRESS'. 10075 Levon Avenue, Suite 301
CITY AND ZIP CODE:Truckee, California 96161
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:John Broussal
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:Truckee Donner Public Utilities District
NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT--CIVIL CASE NUMBER.
T05/1947C
TO(insert name of party being served):Truckee Donner Public Utilities District
NOTICE
Fin
ons and other documents identified below are being served pursuant to section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil
Your failure to complete this form and return it within 20 days from the date of mailing shown below may subject you
y on whose behalf you are being served)to liability for the payment of any expenses incurred in serving a summons ny other manner permitted by law.
eing served on behalf of a corporation,an unincorporated association(including a partnership), or other entity, this
e signed by you in the name of such entity or by a person authorized to receive service of process on behalf of such
entity. In all other cases, this form must be signed by you personally or by a person authorized b
y you to
summons. If you return this form to the sender, service of a summons is deemed complete on the day you ow
sign he nowledge receipt of
acknowledgment of receipt below.
Date of mailing:January 9, 2006
Kathryn L. Anderson
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) [SIGNATURE OF 5 DFJi—MUST NOT BE A PARTY fry THIS CASE)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
This acknowledges receipt of(to be completed by sender before mailing).'
1 0 A copy of the summons and of the complaint.
2. 0 Other(specify).
Notice of Case Management Conference, Case Management Information Sheet, and attached
forms: Case Management Statement, Ex Parte Application for Expansion of Time,Notice of Stay
of Proceedings, Notice of Settlement, ADR Information Sheets,Stipulation and Order to Participate
in ADR and ADR Information Form
(To be completed by recipient):
Date this form is signed:
(TYPE OR PRINt YOUR NAME AND NAME OF ENTITY,IF ANY, 5GNATVRE OF PERSON ACKNOihtEOGING RECEIPT.MATH TITLE IF
ON WHOSE BEHALF THIS FORM IS SIGNED) ACKNONLEDGMENT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON OR ENTITY)
roan Adopted C.u`orM C. use NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT CIVIL Payet o(i
Juaico Council ae rueomia Cole of Civil Pemid ee,
POS-015[Rev.January 1. w5l §§415.30.417.10
www murtin(O.cagO I
American LegalNeLi� s
wervi.UiC:. rtFormseom [
SUMMONS SUM-100FORCOURTUSEONLY
(CITACION JUDICIAL) (SOLO PA"USO OE CoRrEl
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(A VISO AL DEMANDADO):
TRUCKLE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT
Zu 1_1
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
JOHN BROUSSAL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this sum-0-1 and legal Papers are served on You to file a written response at this
court and have a
copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone Call will not protect you.Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the
court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response.You can find these court forms and more
Information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center(viviriv.courtinfit.ca.gov/seffhelp),your county taw library,or the courthouse
nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee,ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file Your response on time,you may
loss the case by default,and your wages,money,and Property may be taken without further w m o the court.Them are other legal requirements.You may want to call n attorney right a ta Ing horn a rL
attorney referral service.If you cannot afford an attorney.you may be eligible f way.If you do not know an attorney,You may want to call an
program.You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California u or free legal services from a nonprofit legal services
role Legal Services Web site(wwwlawliefPcallfornia.org),the California
Courts Online Self-Help Center(www-courtjnfo.Ca.gov/s*4f1i or by contacting your local court or county bar association.
riene 30 DJAS DE CALENDARIO despuds de qua/a entreguen esta citaci6n
en eats torte Yhacerqueseentreguoune copra aldemandante. Una Corte o unypapeles!agates Pam Proseribirurhil MsPuesta per escrifo
a Homada releffinica no 10 Protegen. Su respuesta per
escritO tiene quo eater on formato legal correct,si oases qua procesen so case en to Corte. Es Posible qua hays un formulario qua usted
puedo usar Para su respuesta. Pivedeencontrarestas formulariosdela torte ymiis informactim an a/Centro deAyuda data$Cortes;do
California(www.Courtinfo.ca.govlselfhelplespanoli),an Is biblioteca,de!eyes de su condado o an to Corte qua to quede mas came. Si no
Poodle pager la coot&de Plasamlaci6n,pida at secretario de/a Corte qua/a d6 on formulario de exenci6n de Pago de cuores. Siropresents
su respuesta a ffeMPO,poodle perder of case per incumplimientic,y la Corte/a pods so sueldo,dinero y bienes sin roes advertencia.
Hay otros requisites legal". Es renomendable qua Home a un abogado mmediataimente. Si no carioca a un abogado,puede flamer a un
servictio de remisidn a abogsdos. Si no Puente Pager a on abogado,as posible qua
legailes gratuitos de on programs de servicios legs/es sin lines de lucm. Puede Coo cuo"Pla curt IOS requisites Para obterter servicios;
California Legal Services,(wwwjawhe1pc ontrair estos gmpos sin fines de lucro an a/sitio web de
aliformo.orit),an a/Centro de Ayuda de las Caries de California,
(www.couttinfo.ca,govlselfhelplespanoll)o poniiiindose an cOnlach)COR I&Corte 0 a/colegio de abogados locales,
e name ana
:1�1:�: :; :j: :: court I !:::: :
' :: is:(El ombre y direcciiin de la corfe OS): CASENUMBER
Nevada County Superior Court(Truckee) ilid�..0 c��.) T05/1947C
10075 Levon Avenue
Truckee, California 96161
The name, address,and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El norribre, la direccidn y a/n6mero de tol6fono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante due no tione abogado. es).
S. Chandler Visher, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830, San Francisco, California 94104;,(tele.:415,'901.0500)
'W"t" it ,
DATE DEC 2 2 2005 v7-, 'FAN A\ Clerk, by Wilk 1
(Paths) Deputy
(For proof of service of this Summons use Proof (Secretario) (Adjunto)
(Para prueba de entraps,us esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service mons I'm POS-010)�)
Of Summons, (POS-010)).
Ec(Nsi-N NUMBER:
ISEAL11 NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED:You are served
as an individual defendant,
2 as the person sued under the fictitious name of(specify):
1 on behalf of(specify):
under: CCP 416.10(corporation) CCP 416.60(minor)
V
CCP 416 20(defunct corporation) = CCP 416.70(conservatee)
CCP 416.40(association or partnership) = CCP 416.90(authorized person)
other(specify):
4 by personal delivery on(date):
.instal Coanr!of Cabiomia Co-a'Olf Pl-cIlul§§412 2C,465
M IM iRev Janna6 I 2W41 SUMMONS
EE��E—n r)
1 LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
2 S. Chandler Visher(SBN 52957)
44 Montgomery St., #3 83 0
3 San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone (415) 901-0500
4 Facsimile (415) 901-0504
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 NEVADA COUNTY
9 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
10 JOHN BROUSSAL, on behalf of himself
I I and all others similarly situated, No. T05/1947C
12 Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION
13 v. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
14 TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF AND TO
UTILITIES DISTRICT; and DOES 1 —50, DETERMINE APPLICATION OF
I S UTIL LOCAL ORDINANCE
16 Defendants.
17
18
19
20 Plaintiff JOHN BROUSSAL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated hereby
21 complains against the above-named defendants as follows:
22 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
23 This class action is intended to (1)require defendant TAHOE DONNER PUBLIC
24 UTILITIES DISTRICT(TDPUD) to halt the unfair practices of illegally discriminating against
25 properties formerly served by the Donner Lake Water Company(DLWC)who had not connected to
26 their water system before June 6, 2005 by charging them without justification a water facilities fee
27 not imposed on other properties in that subdivision prior to that time; (2) stop the TDPUD from
28 imposing water connection facility fees on properties in the DLWC who seek to connect after June
COMPLAINT -
e
._ . . ...... .... . _ __ __. _ _ _.
1 6, 2005, or to show cause why such fees may be properly imposed, (3)determine that no capacity
2 charge may be imposed by the TDPUD on former customers of the Donner Lake Water Company
3 or, in the alternative,that the court order an accounting; (4) detemune that the water facility fee is a
4 special tax adopted without complying with applicable law and (5)require that the TDPUD credit
5 assessments imposed on DLWC properties for the building of water facilities serving those
6 properties against any the water capacity charge legally imposed by the TDPUD.
7 PARTIES
8 1. Plaintiff JOHN BROUSSAL is over the age of eighteen and the owner of
9 undeveloped property in the service area of the defendant utility district.
10 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC
I 1 UTILITIES DISTRICT(hereinafter TDPUD) is a special district created under California law for
12 the purpose, among others, of supplying potable water to residences and business within its
13 service area and has its principal place of business in Truckee, California.
14 3. Defendant DOES 1 through 50 are persons or entities whose true names and
15 identities are presently unknown to plaintiff and who, therefore, are sued by such fictitious names.
16 Each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the matters alleged
17 herein and is jointly and severally liable to plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend
18 the Complaint to state the true names and capacities of DOES I through 50 when the same have
19 been ascertained.
20 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes that,at all times herein mentioned,each defendant
21 was the agent, co-conspirator,joint tortfeasor,joint venturer, independent contractor, and/or alter
22 ego of each other defendant. In doing the things alleged herein, each defendant was acting within
23 the course and scope of said agency,conspiracy,contract, and/or joint venture with the direction,
24 advance knowledge, authorization, acquiescence,and/or subsequent ratification of each and every
25 remaining defendant. Each defendant was put in a position and so enabled by the remaining
26 defendants to do the things hereinafter alleged. Each defendant had the knowledge of and agreed to
27 the objective and course of action hereinafter alleged,and each defendant conspired with and aided
28 and abetted each other defendant in achieving that objective and pursuing that course of action.
s
t
COMPLARJT _
i Plaintiff are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of said fictitious defendants was
2 responsible in some way for the matters alleged herein and proximately caused plaintiff and
3 members of the public the damages complained of herein.
4 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
5 5. Plaintiff sues in his individual capacity and on behalf of a class of undeveloped
6 property owners, as defined herein,pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 382.
7 6. The class consists of all persons who were owners of property in the area serviced by
8 the Donner Lake Water Company(hereinafter DLWC)prior to May 21,2001,whose property was
9 not physically connected to the TDPUD water system on June 6,2005. The properties so defined
10 are referred to herein as the"Class Properties."Members of this class are similarly situated and are
I 1 readily ascertainable but are so numerous that joinder is impractical. There is a well-defined
12 community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved, affecting the parties to be
13 represented in that each such party has been injured by, and has an interest in litigating the legality
14 of,the practices of defendant alleged herein. Proof of a common set of facts will establish the right
15 of each member of the class to recover. Among the common questions of law are the following:
16 a. May the TDPUD treat property owned by members of the class differently from
17 other properties in the former DLWC service area with respect to imposition of a
18 water facility fee unless and until it shows that the costs of providing water capacity
19 to members of the class is different from that of providing water to other properties
20 in the DLWC?
21 b. Does the water capacity charge established by TDPUD Ordinance 2005-03 fund,
22 when imposed on properties owned by members of the class, only costs necessary for
23 providing water to such customers or, to the contrary, has it been established in an
24 amount that will also fund improvements necessary for properties other than those
25 owned by members of the class?
26 c. Is the water capacity charge established by Ordinance 2005-03 a special tax
27 requiring a vote of property owners or persons affected to be effective?
28
COMPLANT -
I d. May the water capacity charge established by Ordinance 2005-03 be imposed on
2 properties owned by members of the class?
3 e. Should the class members receive a credit in the amount of the special assessment
4 for construction of water facilities imposed on their properties against the capacity
5 charge imposed by Ordinance 2005-03?
6 7. Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the class he represents, and he will fairly and
7 adequately represent the interests of the class.
8 8. There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy other than by maintenance of this
9 representative action because damage to each member of the class is relatively small,making it
10 economically infeasible for class members to pursue remedies individually. The prosecution of
11 separate actions by the individual class members,even if possible, would create a risk of
12 inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members against the
13 defendants, and which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants.
14 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15 9. The TDPUD is a public utilities district created under California law for the purpose,
16 among others, of providing water service to properties located within its boundaries and is a special
17 district as that term in used in Govt. Code 50075.5(b).
18 10. On May 7, 2001,the TDPUD extended its service area to the properties formerly
19 served by the Donner Lake Water Company(DLWC).
20 11. After incorporating the DLWC properties the TDPUD connected all properties that
21 had existing connections to the DLWC to its system and began providing water to them without
22 imposing a capacity charge.
23 , 12. When serviced by the DLWC the properties in its service area did not have to pay a
24 capacity fee in order to connect to the water system. The only charge was a$340 hookup fee to pay
25 for the physical connection between the property and the water main in the street. About 40
26 properties had paid the hookup fee but had not been connected to the DLWC at the time the TDPLID
27 took over the DLWC service area.
28
L
COMPLIUNT —
1 13. For properties in the former DLWC service area that were not connected to the
2 DLWC at the time of acquisition,regardless of whether they had already paid for a physical
3 connection to that system,the TDPUD proposed imposing a hookup fee of approximately$900 and
4 a capacity charge in excess of$3,000.
5 14. In June of 2002, S. Chandler Visher, attorney for the plaintiff, wrote to the TDPUD
6 advising it that (1)it would be illegal to impose any capacity charge on the DLWC properties
7 because the existing water facility fee ordinance only allowed imposition of capacity charges to
8 properties in the service area designated by that ordinance, and that the DLWC area had not been
9 designated and so was not included and(2)a special assessment to build complete water facilities
10 had been imposed on the DLWC properties,making any capacity charge imposed by the TDPUD in
11 addition to the assessment redundant and improper. Mr. Visher enclosed a draft complaint in the
12 letter which set forth the legal issues of concern.
13 15. Mr. Visher stated that the purpose of the June 11, 2002 letter was to "request
14 pursuant to Government Code Section 66016(a) that you give me notice of any meetings at which
15 new or increased fees or service charges will be discussed or levied."
16 16. In apparent agreement that there was no legal authority for imposition of a capacity
17 charge on properties in the DLWC service area,the TDPUD stopped charging capacity charges to
18 such properties soon after receiving the letter. All property owners in the DLWC who had water
19 connections at the time the TDPUD incorporated the property into its service area and all property
20 owners in the DLWC who obtained water connections to the TDPUD up to June 6, 2005, were
21 given such connections free of any water capacity charge. Conversely,properties not connected at
22 the time the property was incorporated into the TDPUD service area were charged a connection
23 charge to cover the cost of making the physical connection to the water system.
24 17. On February 13, 2003, Mr. Visher and a retained water rates consultant from Brown
25 and Caldwell, Marvin Winer,met with Steven Gross, an attorney representing the TDPUD and
26 TDPUD staff concerning the concerns plaintiff had about the propriety of imposing water capacity
27 charges on DLWC properties.
28
i
COMPLAINT _
c
1 18. On July 24, 2003, Mr. Visher wrote to Steven Gross,attorney for the TDPUD
2 indicating that a number of issues had been resolved or nearly resolved but that several issues
3 remained. The letter noted that"I understand that the staff intends to present a new rate ordinance
4 to the Board in August' stated that"The Donner Lake customers are all paying for a complete new
5 system. Nothing in the reports that have been prepared to date shows how the facilities to be built
6 with the facility fee benefit these customers." This letter constituted a renewed request for notice
7 of any new ordinance.
8 19. In February of 2004 plaintiff received from the TDPUD a 2004 Master Water Plan
9 for review. In that same month Mr. Visher and Mr. Gross talked about possible resolution of the
10 matter without litigation.
11 20. On February 23, 2005 Mr. Visher spoke to Mr. Gross, at which time Mr. Gross
12 promised to notify Mr. Visher when the TDPUD adopted an ordinance imposing capacity charges
13 on DLWC properties. The TDPUD had on file by that date a renewed request for notice of any
14 proposed ordinance and was obligated to provide such notice before any such ordinance was
15 adopted.
16 21. Without providing any notice to Mr. Visher or plaintiff, in April of 2005 the
17 TDPUD adopted Ordinance 2005-03 imposing a facility fee on all TDPUD properties,
18 presumably including those in the DLWC service area. The TDPUD purportedly followed the
19 procedures required by Govt. Code 66016 to enact, effective June 6,2005, its Ordinance 2005-03
20 which, among other things, established a capacity charge for new water connections of$1.64 times
21 the square feet of living space in the proposed dwelling for residential connections and the meter
22 size for commercial development. Ordinance 2005-04 established a connection fee based on the
23 size of the meter, with residential connections generally set at$1090. Ordinance 2005-03 provides
24 that the "water facilities fee shall be charged upon application for water service and shall be paid
25 prior to provision of water service by new development in the water service area depicted and
26 described on the 2004 Water Master Plan Update map."
27
28
_ x
COMPLAINT _
k
f
1 22. On August 16, 2005, Mr. Visher called Mr. Gross and left word with him asking
2 about the status of the ordinance. Mr. Gross did not advise Mr. Visher that the ordinance about
3 which he was inquiring had already been adopted.
4 23. On September 29, 2005, Mr. Visher against called Mr. Gross to inquire about the
5 status of the ordinance. Again Mr. Gross did not tell Mr. Visher about the fact that the ordinance
6 had been passed.
7 24. On December 19, 2005, Mr. Visher called Mr. Gross concerning the status of the
8 ordinance and sent him an e-mail on the same subject. Mr. Gross did not return the phone tali but
9 did send Mr. Visher an email advising him for the first time that the ordinance that Mr. Visher
10 had been asking about for more than three years had been passed.
11 25. The 2004 Water Master Plan Update, page 9-5, states that the$47.58 million will
12 provide water for 14,177 Equivalent Dwelling Units, or EDU's. Dividing these two numbers results
13 in an average EDU facilities fee charge of$3,356.14. The size of the average EDU is 2,048 square
14 feet. The 2004 Water Master Plan Update,page 9-6, derives the$1.64 per square foot facilities fee
15 by dividing$3,356.14 by 2,048.
16 26. Govt. Code 66016(a)requires that at least 10 days before the adoption of a fee
17 ordinance"the local agency shall make available to the public data indicating the amount of cost, or
18 estimated cost,required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the
19 revenue sources anticipated to provide the service." The 2004 Water Master Plan Update purports
20 to provide a factual basis for the water facilities charge established in Ordinance 2005-03 and the
21 ordinance refers to the 2004 Water Master Plan Update as complying with the requirements of Govt.
22 Code 66016.
23 27. Government Code Section 66106(a) further provides that the capacity charge may
24 not be imposed in"an amount which exceeds the estimated amount required to provide the service
25 for which the fee or service charge is levied."
26 28, The 2004 Water Master Plan Update states at page 9-1 that "Facility Fees are
27 charged to new development to pay for water system facilities that have not yet been constructed but
28 are necessary to serve the proposed development or that have been constructed but the new
COMPL.VIVT -
7
I development has not paid its fair share of the costs associated with the new construction." In
2 contrast, page 9-1 of the 2004 Water Master Plan Update notes that water Rates are used to"cover
3 the day-to-day operating expenses of the District. The 2004 Water Master Plan Update estimates
4 that the water facility fee needs to create revenues of approximately$47.58 million to pay the
5 TDPUD portion of water facilities needed for new construction. The water facilities fee set forth in
6 Ordinance 2005-03 was established in an amount necessary to recover the full $47.58 million from
7 new customers of the TDPUD who connect to the system after May 7,2001,
8 29. The stated purpose in Ordinance 2005-03 of the facilities fee established therein was
9 "to finance public water system facilities to reduce the impacts of additional demands on the
10 existing water system caused by new development'in the District service area.
11 30. The capacity charge specified by Ordinance 2005-03 for the first time imposed a
12 facilities fee on properties in the former service areas of the DLWC.
13 31. No property in the former DLWC service area that did not have a water connection
14 to the TDPUD as of June 6,2005, will be connected to the TDPUD water system unless the capacity
15 charge specified in Ordinance 2005-03 is paid.
16 32. An analysis of the justification for facilities fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 as
17 found in the 2004 Water Master Plan Update was commissioned by plaintiff and performed by the
18 environmental engineers and consultants Brown and Caldwell. The Brown and Caldwell analysis
19 shows that no part of the facilities fee benefits former customers of the DLWC and that it is
20 inappropriate to charge those customers any part of the facilities fee.
21 33. 2004 Water Master Plan Update Table 8-3 entitled"Detailed Listing of Proposed
22 Improvements"provides a description, cost and justification for the facilities to which the $47.58
23 million to be collected from new water users through the facilities fee will be devoted. The TDPUD
24 asserted that all of the facilities described in the 2004 Water Master Plan Update were for the
25 exclusive benefit of new customers whereas in fact many of the facilities proposed are for the
26 exclusive benefit of existing customers.
27 34. The TDPUD took over the assets of the DLWC through condemnation and began
28 servicing existing customers of that company beginning on or about May 21, 2001.
s'
i
s
z
COMPLAINT _
1 35. In connection with the condemnation takeover of the DLWC by the TDPUD the
2 TDPUD caused to be established Donner Lake Water Assessment District No. 00-I (hereinafter
3 Assessment District 1). The purpose of Assessment District 1 was to raise approximately$13.6
4 million through assessments to construct a water system to serve the former customers of the
5 DLWC. The proposed system serves all of the water facility needs of the former DLWC customers.
6 All of the properties in the former DLWC service area were assessed for the purpose of building the
7 water system proposed by Assessment District 1 and no portion of the facilities to be built by the
8 Assessment District I are to be paid for from funds other than assessments from former DLWC
9 property owners.
10 36. None of the facilities proposed by the 2004 Water Master Plan Update are for the
I I benefit of the properties served by the water facility to be built with the Assessment District 1 $13.6
12 million assessment.
13 37. All customers of the DLWC who had water connections at the time the service area
14 of the company was incorporated into the service area of the TDPUD were connected to the TDPUD
15 water system without imposition of any facility fee.
16 38. The contribution to the TDPUD by owners of the Class Properties was identical to
17 that of owners of properties in the prior service areas of the DLWC; no justification for the
18 imposition of the capacity charge on the Class Properties while not imposing it on the other
19 properties in the service areas of the DLWC exists.
20 39. There are approximately 436 developable vacant lots in the DLWC service area
21 whose owners would be subject to the TDPUD capacity charge when the lots were developed. The
22 total overcharge to these owners is approximately$1,350,000.
23 Allegations Regarding Class Representative
24 40. Plaintiff is the owner of undeveloped real property located in the former service area
25 of the DLWC.
26 41. Plaintiff's property has been assessed by Assessment District No. 1 for the
27 construction of new water facilities to serve the property.
28
COMPLAINT _ F
n
r
1 42. Plaintiffs property will be subject to the full capacity charge established by
2 Ordinance 2005-03.
3 43. The TDPUD has not sought approval of any water capacity charge, including the
4 facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03, by any vote of electors in the affected area or of
5 persons affected by such capacity charge.
6 44. Plaintiff paid a$340.32 connection fee to the DLWC,but the meter and connection
7 for which the payment was made was never installed, although a portion of this amount was
8 refunded.
9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (INJUNCTION AGAINST IMPOSITION OF ILLEGAL CAPACITY CHARGE)
11 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I —44 of this complaint as though set
12 forth in full herein and further alleges as follows.
13 46. Unless enjoined the TDPUD will impose the facility fee established by Ordinance
14 2005-03 on the Class Properties,
15 47. The water facilities fee may only be imposed on properties that benefit from the
16 facilities to be constructed with the fees collected.
17 48. The Class Properties will not benefit from the facilities to be constructed with the
18 water capacity fees collected.
19 49. A permanent injunction should be imposed on the TDPUD preventing it from
20 imposing the facility fee established in Ordinance 2005-03 on any Class Properties.
21 50. The TDPUD should be ordered to give restitution to any owner of a Class Property
22 who paid a water facility fee after May 7, 2001 to the TDPUD as a condition of providing water
23 service to such property.
24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE GOVT. CODE § 66013(c))
26 51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 —44 of this complaint as though set
27 forth in full herein and further alleges as follows.
28 s
�COMPLAINT _
i
1 52. The facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 is a capacity charge as defined
2 by Govt. Code Section 66013(b)(3).
3 53. Govt. Code Section 66013(c) requires that the TDPUD expend the funds collected
4 from the facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 "solely for the purposes for which the
5 charges were collected."
6 54. The facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 may properly only be used for
7 the purpose of constructing facilities required for new connections to the TDPUD water system.
8 The facility fee revenues may not be used to construct or repair any facilities which do not benefit
9 new connection users. Very few or none of the facilities proposed to be constructed shall benefit
10 properties in the former DLWC service area.
11 55. The Ordinance 2005-03 facility fee may not be collected from Class Properties
12 because all funds collected must be used to make the proposed improvements in Table 8-3 of the
13 2004 Water Master Plan Update, but none of those facilities benefit the Class Properties and the
14 facilities needed by the Class Properties are provided by the special assessment imposed on them.
15 56. An alternate writ of mandate should issue to the TDPUD not to expend any
16 revenues from the facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 imposed on the Class Properties
17 or to show cause why it may properly expend such revenues for particular items listed in Table 8-
18 3 of the 2004 Water Master Plan Update that benefit the Class Properties.
19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (VALIDATION ACTION CCP § 863)
21 5T Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 —44 of this complaint as though set
22 forth in full herein and further alleges as follows.
23 58. The facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 was a capacity charge described
24 in and subject to Govt. Code Section 66013.
25 59. Govt. Code Section 66022 provides that any judicial action to attack or void
26 Ordinance 2005-03 shall be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 et seq.
27 60. Plaintiff is an "interested person"as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure Section
28 863.
COMPLAINT —
11
1 61. Govt. Code Section 66013(a)provides that the capacity charge established by
2 Ordinance 2005-03 "shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
3 which the fee or charge is imposed."
4 62. "The service for which the fee or charge is imposed" as stated in Ordinance 2005-
5 03 is "to reduce the impacts of additional demands on the existing water system caused by new
6 development with the District's water service area"and the "fees expected to be generated by new
7 development will not exceed the total of those costs."
8 63. Govt. Code Section 66013(b)(3) requires that a capacity charge must be "of benefit
9 to the person or property being charged."
10 64. To the extent this is an action to "attack,review, set aside, void, or annul"
I 1 Ordinance 2005-03, the failure to provide notice to plaintiff of the proposed ordinance as required
12 by 66016(1) and as promised by TDPUD's attorney Steven Gross caused an equitable tolling of
13 the start of the 120 day statute of limitation provided for in Govt. Code 66022(a)until December
14 19, 2005, the date on which plaintiff was given notice of the ordinance, and estops the TDPUD
15 from raising the statute of limitations as a defense.
16 65. The Court should determine that Ordinance 2005-03 may not be applied to the
17 Class Properties unless the TDPUD can show that the special assessment imposed on those
18 properties does not provide the water facilities needed by those properties.
19 66. As an alternative remedy, in the event the court determines that a validation action
20 may not properly be brought at this time, plaintiff asks the court to use its equitable power to
21 require the TDPUD to perform an audit of the facility fee established in Ordinance 2005-03 as
22 provided in Govt. Code Section 66023, to supervise the selection of an independent auditor and
23 require that the facility fee imposed on Class Properties be adjusted in conformity with the
24 findings of such independent auditor.
25 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 (TO DETERMINE FACILITY FEE IS SPECIAL TAX)
27 67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I —44 of this complaint as though set
28 forth in full herein and further alleges as follows.
COMPLAWT _ �
1 68. The facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 is a special tax, subject to the
2 exemption provided in Govt. Code Section 50076.
3 69. The facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 does not meet the requirements
4 for exemption from being a special tax as provided in Govt. Code Section 50076 because the fee
5 does "exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service . . . for which to fee is charged."
6 70. A special tax may not be imposed without a vote on the issue by the residents of
7 the affected area or the owners of affected property.
8 71. No vote as required to approve a special tax was taken for the purpose of
9 approving the facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03.
10 72. The Court should invalidate the facility fee in Ordinance 2005-03 and find that the
11 revenue anticipated to be collected thereby exceeds the reasonable cost of providing water service
12 to new users.
13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (INJUNCTION REQUIRING EQUAL TREATMENT)
15 73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 —44 of this complaint as though set
16 forth in frill herein and further alleges as follows.
17 74. Properties located in the DLWC service area that connected to the TDPUD before
18 June 6, 2005 have provided no more monetary contribution to the TDPUD than Class Properties
19 had as of that date.
20 75. If properties located in the DLWC service area that connected to the TDPUD
21 before June 6, 2005 are using water capacity for which the TDPUD did not collect any revenue,
22 the TDPUD must be held to have made an illegal gift of public funds to such persons and be
23 required to collect for such capacity from the owners of such properties.
24 76. If properties located in the DLWC service area that connected to the TDPUD
25 before June 6, 2005 are using water capacity for which the TDPUD was not entitled to collect anv
26 revenue, so that the TDPUD did not make an illegal gift of public funds to such persons, the
27 TDPUD must be required to show why the Class Properties, which made the same contribution to
t
28
i
COMrLnm;T _
3
I the TDPUD as the properties connected without payment of a capacity charge, should have a
2 capacity charge imposed on them.
3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4 The plaintiff prays that the Court grant relief pursuant to this complaint as follows:
5 1. That the Court enjoin TDPUD from imposing the facility fee established in
6 Ordinance 2005-03 on any Class Property and ordered to give restitution to any owner of a Class
7 Property who paid a water facility fee after May 7, 2001 to the TDPUD as a condition of
8 providing water service to such property pursuant to the First Cause of Action.
9 2. That the Court issue its alternative writ of mandate to the TDPUD requiring it: a)
10 to stop collecting the facility fee from owners of Class Properties or prove in a show cause
11 hearing that the benefit to the Class Properties is proportional to the charge to them of the
12 facilities planned to be funded by the facility fee; and b) not to expend any revenues from the
13 facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 imposed on the Class Properties or show cause why
14 it may properly expend such revenues for particular items listed in Table 8-3 of the 2004 Water
15 Master Plan Update that benefit the Class Properties pursuant to the Second Cause of Action.
16 3. That the Court determine that Ordinance 2005-03 may not properly be applied to
17 the Class Properties unless the TDPUD can show that the special assessment imposed on those
18 properties does not provide the water facilities needed by those properties pursuant to the Third
19 Cause of Action.
20 4. If the validation action brought in the Third Cause of Action is untimely, that it
21 require the TDPUD to perform an independent audit under court supervision pursuant to the Third
22 Cause of Action.
23 5. That the Court determine that the facility fee established by Ordinance 2005-03 is a
24 special tax and is invalid for failure to follow required voter adoption procedures pursuant to the
25 Fourth Cause of Action.
26 6. That the Court order the TDPUD to credit against future connection charges
27 imposed by it any special assessment for water facilities paid by members of the class pursuant to
28 the Fifth Cause of Action.
COMPLAINT -
14
1 7. That it determine that this action may properly be brought as a class action.
2 8. That it award plaintiff's counsel reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to
3 Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 and other applicable law.
4 9. That the Court provide such other and further relief as justice requires.
5
6 Date: December 20, 2005 Respectfully submitted,
7 LAo ICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
8
9 By
o. Chandler visher
10 Attorney for Plaintiff
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLgIIJT - '',.
15
A 7`70WYOR PARTY WFMOUTATTOgVEy(,one,addras,phone and fax number) FOR COURT USE ONLY
iED Doe.S
Superior Court of California, County of Nevada N=-
10075 Levon Avenue, Suite 301 T4-'-R
Truckee ca 96161
TRUCKEE BRANCH
PLAINTIFF: JOHN BROUSSAL U> Ica 1E,1 CO-U-N�Iy
q B T�1,�C NW.
DEFENDANT:
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITIES
DISTRICT _J
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WASE NUMBER:
T05/1947C
NOTICE is given that a Case Management Conference has been scheduled as follows:
Date rime: 9:00a.m. :
1!,1, � 1 TELEPHONICI S ONLY-No PERSONAL
APPEARANCES' YOU MUST CONTACT COURT CLERK A WEEK
5/26/06 PRIOR TO CONFIRM A SPECIFIC CALL-IN 7T
,OR TEM�- — AT(530)582-7835
ASK C1NrlL DEPARTMENT
Strict compliance with Local Rule 4.00.6 required. An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions Will issue if
service Is not completed within 60 days or Application for extension is not sought
RUCKEE CA 96161
* Notice Is given that this case is assigned to Judge C. Anders Holmer for all purposes.
• You must file and serve a completed Case Management Statement form CM-I 10 at least fifteen days before
the case management conference(California Rule of Court 212(g)). Strict compliance with California Rules
of Court 201.7 required.
• You must be familiar with the case and be fully premed to participate effectively in the case management
gemcnt
• At the case management conference the court may make pretrial orders,including the following:
• An order establishing a discovery schedule;
• A referral of the case to judicial arbitration or some other form of alternate dispute resolution with a
date of completion;
• An order scheduling exchange of expert witness information;
• An order setting subsequent conferences and the trial date;
• Other orders to achieve the goals of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Gov.Code §686000 et
seq,);
• Should the parties comply with California Rules of Court 201.7 and timely file their Case Management
Statement appearance at the case management conference may be waived.
• For further instructions and information see the Case Management Information Sheet.
Dated 12/22/05
G.SEAN METROKA,CEO by BECKY C,4A� Deputy
I I
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Nevada, Truckee Branch
ANDERSHOLMER,Judge
e,�„a,N,, G.SEAN MMROKA
SEAN P.DOWLiNG Court Executive Oricer
Commissioner 10075 Levon Ave., Suite 301
Truckee CA 96161
(530)582-7835 Fax(530)582-7875
CASE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SHEET
PURSUANT TO CALWORNIA RULES OF COURT 212
• The clerk will set a date for the Case Management Conference at the time the complaint is filed.
• The complaint and cross-complaint are to be filed and served pursuant to California Rule of Court
201.7,along with a copy of the Notice of Case Management Conference and the Case
Management Information Sheet with attached blank copy of the Case Management Statement.
Counsel is also required to serve the Nevada County Superior Court Alternative Dispute
Resolution Information Sheet and attached stipulation form
• At least fifteen calendar days prior to the scheduled Case Management Conference,each party
shall file with the court and serve on all parties,a completed Case Management Statement.
APPEARANCE AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE:
• Are conducted by telephonic conference calls only. No personal appearances unless
directed by the court. Counsel and/or parties appearing without counsel to contact the court
approximately a week prior to the Case Management Conference date to get the specific call-in
time and directions on the procedure of the conference call.
• All parties to have in the court file their Case Management Conference statements to
participate in the conference call
• The number to call to arrange the specific call-in time and obtain the directions on the conference
call procedure is 530/582-7835,
ATOORNEY OR PARTr wiTNOUt AnoaNEY ffi ,slue si CM-110
OSSr FOR COURT USEONLY
TEEPHW No.: FAX NO.polka :
E-Mi ADORM topCp,.i
ATTORNEY FOR(Awi
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF NEVADA
STREETAWRESs: 10075 LEVON AVENUE, SUITE 301
MAN.ING ADDRESS:- SAME
cnY AM ZIP COM TRUCKEE, CA 96161
eMNCN NAME: TRUCKEE BRANCH
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
DEFENDANTMESPONOENT:
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NUL6ER
(Check one); C-1 UNtJMITED CASE LIMITED CASE
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded is$25,000
exceeds$25,000) or less).
A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows:
Date: Time:
Dept: Div.: Room:
Address of court(if different ham the address above):
INSTRUCTIONS:All applicable boxes must be checked,and the specified information must be provided.
1_ Party or parties(answer one).
a. This statement is submitted by party(name):
b. This statement is submitted jointly by parties(names):
2. Complaint and cross-complaint(to be answered by plaintiffk and cross-complainants only)
a. The complaint was filed on (date):
b. F-1 The Cross-complaint.if any,was fled on(date):
3. Service(to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
a. = All parties named in the complaint and cross-Complaint have been served.or have appeared,or have been dismissed.
b. 0 The following parties named in the complaint or Cross-complaint
(1) have not been served(specify names and explain why not):
(2) O have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed(specify names):
(3) ED have had a default entered against them(specify names):
c. = The following additional parties maybe added(specify names, nature of involvement in case,and the date by which
May may be served):
t. Description of case
a. Type of case in C] complaint
Pi 0 cross-complaint (describe,including causes of action):
z
z
otm Ap~W Marwalpy Use Page 10 a �}
A+d�ro,eeud Cau CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT cx R„ieea�,n,:M 110�Ne.,_January t.30051 ..
_ .
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: cnse Wt FK
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
10, d. The Party or parties are willing to participate in(check a6 that apply):
(1) F-1 Mediation
(2) 0 Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.12(discovery to close 15 days before
arbitration under Cal.Rules of Court,rule 1612)
(3) Nonbinding judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.12(discovery to remain open until 30 days
before trial:order required under Cal.Rules of Court,rule 1612)
(4) Binding judicial arbitration
(5) Binding private arbitration
(6) 0 Neutral case evaluation
(7) 0 Other(specify):
a. This matter is subject to mandatory judicial arbitration because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit.
f. Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of Civil
Procedure section 1141.11.
9• This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 1601(b)of the California Rules of Court(specify axemplion).
11. Settlement conference
= The party or parties are willing to participate in an early settlement conference(specify when):
12.Insurance
a. M Insurance carrier,if any,for party filing this statement(name):
b. Reservation of rights: M yes Cj No
c• M Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case(explain):
13.Jurisdiction
Indicate any matters that may affect the courrs jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status.
0 Bankruptcy F--1 Other(specify):
Status:
14. Related cases,consolidation,and coordination
a. f1 There are companion,under
lying. or related cases.
(1)Name of case: .
(2)Name of court
(3)Case number.
(4)Status:
0 Additional cases are described in Attachment 14a.
b• ED A motion to F-1 consolidate 0 coordinate will be filed by
(name party):
IS. Bifurcation
0 The Party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating,severing,or coordinating the following issues or causes of
action(specify moving party, type of motion,and reasons):
6. Other motions
The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial(specify moving party, type of motion, and issues):
110 JR. Jamaary i.X105j 'r
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT r.e.3ai
ATTORNEY OR PARTY wm1DUr ATTORNEY(Name,5700 Bai naodo,aMaJSea): CM-020
FOROOURT USEONLY
TELEPHONE NO_- FAX NO{Op m.*
E-MAN-A Ess
ATTORNEYFORfMw,):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF N VA A
s TREETAOORESS 10075 LEVON AVENUE, SUITE 301
WAMAOOREs3: SAME
C�TMAwzrcoe=TRUCKEE, CA 96160
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PET'ITIONER:
DEFENDANVRESPoNDENT.
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE CASE
PLEADING AND C] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE AND
U ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
HEYIM DATE
APPLICATION nEM TUE
Applicant(name):
is
a 0 plaintiff
b. Q cross-complainant
d- 0 petitioner
d. C]defendant
e. 0 cross defendant
f. ®respondent
9. Q other(describe):
The complaint or other initial pleading in this action was fried on(dale):
Applicant requests that the court grant an order extending time for service of the
a. Cl Complaint folbwvng pleading:
b- 0 Cross-comptaint
C� 0 Petition
d. C3 Answer or other responsive pleading
e. ❑ Other(describe):
Service and filing of the pleading listed in item 3 is presently required to be completed by(dale):
Previous applications,orders,or stipulations for an extension of time to serve and file in M action are:
a. C] None
b- 0 The following(describe a),,including the length of any previous extansfons):
Applicant requests an extension of time to serve and file the pleading Wed in item 3 on the foibwing parties(name each):
3
i
Page 1 d 1
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RWeapCpa[
TO SERVE PLEADING AND ORDERS wesmi.rana]Ts '
mnY EsubM Fy�TM
1ORNEY OR PARW wnH(wTATTORREv CM-180
(AWre,Sta4 Bar nvrsdeL arb a.?Wp3s): FOR CGVRT USF ONLY
LEPHONE NO, .FAX NO.lOpb.,g'.,
AA&ADDRESS IC06,,NX
TORREY FOR(AMnk
1PERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF NEVADA
sTREETADDREs&10075 LE ON AVENUE, Sul 301
uAXINGADORESS: SAME
cm Am zip cooeTRUCKEE, CA 96161
wwxHNAueTRUCKEE BRANCH
AINTtFF/PETITIONER:
FENDANT/RESPONDENT:
CASE NNLEER
NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
A/0GE
oErr:
4 court and to all parties:
3eclarant(name):
�. L3 is 0 the party Q the attorney for the party who requested or caused the stay.
. 0 is Q the plaintiff or petitioner C3 the attorney for the plainintiff or petitioner.The
not appeared in this case or Is not s party
who
requested the stay has
object to the jurisdiction of this court.
his case is stayed as follows:
L3 With regard to at parties,
[l With regard to the following parties(specify by name and party designation):
eason for the stay:
0 Aulomatic stay caused by a filing in another court(Attach a copy of the Notice o1 Commencement >f Case, the .bankruptcy pefiUon,or other document showing that the stay is in effect,and showing fhe court case number,
debtor,and pefiBonea.)
0 Order of a federal court or of a higher California court.(Attach a copy of the court order.)
0 Contractual arbitration under Code Of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. (Attach a copy of the order directing
arbitration.)
Q Arbitration of attorney fees and costs under Business and Professions Code section 6201.(AifacJt a copy of the client's request for arbitration showing fling and service.)
[] Other
under penalty Of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct,
frYPE OR PRINT NA1 OF pECIARA)iT) ' (SIC+NATiXiE)
f C " NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS cap.RWes n cd.L .ae zzA iseM�fornas TY
i
TGRN r EY OR PARTY WNOUT ATTORNEY(Ngnw,Siafe Par�.yra wdess): CM-200FOR COURT USEONLY
IEPHORE NO, FAX NO.(OgRVWt
U4 ADDRESS(Opkv,9.
rORNEY FOR(N jt
)PERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF NEVA A
STREETAWRESS:10075 LEVON AVENUE, SUITE 301
uA"4G ADDRESS: SAME
crrYARo zip coor TRUCKEE, CA 96161
sR&w-HRAueTRUCKEE BRANCH
AINTIFF/PETITIONER:
FENDANT/RESPONDENT:
CASE NUNAIER
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
RAGE
DEPT_
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF
you have not filed a request for dismissal within 45 days of the date this Notice of Settlement is received by the
curt or,if the settlement is conditionat,within 45 days of the date specified in Hem 1b,the court must dismiss the
ase unless good cause is Shown within that time why the case should not be dismissed.
e court,all pard",and any arbitrator or other court-connected ADR neutral Involved in this case:
'his case has been settled.The settlement is:
I. 0 Unconditional.A request for dismissal w4M be filed within 45 days after the dale of the settlement
Date of settlement
C] Conditional.The setlement agreement conditions dismissal of this matter on the satisfactory completion of
specified terms that are not to be performed within 45 days of the date of the settlement A request for dismissal will
be filed no later than(date):
ate initial pleading filed:
ext scheduled hearing or conference:
Purpose:
Date: Time:
tat date:
0 No trial date set
[l Date: Time:
edare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State Of California that the foregoing is true and corect - -
iPRYtr NAPE OF C�ATTORNEY 0 PARTYWIr UTATTORNEY) (SM'NM1TVRE)
i
S
r a NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
ca.Rwes a eavL Ne m
Essn+tia�Fwms Ty
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Nevada, Truckee Branch
S,LL On,h
O'
ANDERS HOLMER,Judge .��t
SEAN P.DOWLING `au...t• G.SEANMEMOKA
Commissioner 10075 Levon Ave.,Suite 301 Court Erecwm Ofjtcer
Truckee CA 96161
(530)582-7835 Fax(530)582-7875
NEVADA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET
Many cases can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties without the necessity of traditional
litigation,which can be expensive,time consuming,and stressful. The Court finds that it is in the
best interest of the parties that they participate in alternatives to traditional litigation,including
arbitration or mediation. Therefore,all matters shall be referred to an appropriate form of
Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR)before they are set for trial,unless there is good cause to
dispense with the ADR requirement.
What is ADA?
ADR is the general term for a wide variety of dispute resolution processes that are alternatives to
litigation. Types of ADR processes include mediation,arbitration and settlement conferences,
among other forms.
What are the advantages of choosing ADR instead of litigation?
ADR can save time. A dispute can be resolved in a matter of months,or even weeks,
While litigation can take years.
ADR can save money. Attorneys'fees,court costs,and expert fees can be reduced or
avoided altogether.
ADR provides more participation. Parties have more opportunities with ADR to express
their interest and concerns,instead of focusing exclusively on legal rights.
ADR provides more control and flexibility. Parties can choose the ADR process that
Is most likely to bring a satisfactory resolution to their dispute.
ADR can reduce stress. ADR encourages cooperation and communication,while
discouraging the adversarial atmosphere of Rtigation. Surveys of parties who have participated
In an ADR process have found much greater satisfaction than with parties who have gone.
through litigation.
What are the main forms ofADR offered by the Court?
Mediation Is an informal,confidential process in which a neutral party(the mediator)
assists the parties in understanding their own interests,the interests of the other parties
and the practical and legal realities they all face. The mediator then helps the parties to
explore options and arrive at a mutual acceptable resolution of the dispute. The
mediator does not decide the dispute,the parties do.
Mediation may be appropriate when:
The parties want a non-adversary procedure;
The parties have a continuing business or personal relationship;
SUPERIOR CO U F CALIFORNIA
COUN E BRANCH
100 301
C.AMERS HOLMER G.SPAN MFMOKA
Judge Court Ereeutt"officer
COUNTY OF NEVADA SUPERIOR COURT ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION SHEET
Many cams can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties without the necessity of traditional litigation,
which can be expcnsive,time consuming,and stressful. The Court finds that it is in the best interest of
the parties that they participate in alternatives to traditional litigation,including arbitration or mediation.
Therefore,all matters shall be referred to an appropriate form of Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR)
before they are set for trial,unless there is good cause to dispense with the ADR requirement.
What is ADR?
ADR is the general term for a wide variety of dispute resolution processes that are alternatives to
litigation. Types of ADR processes include mediation, arbitration and settlement conferences,among
other forms.
What are the advantages of choosingADR instead oftitiganan?
ADR can save time.-A dispute can be resolved in a matter of months,or even weeks,
while litigation can take years.
ADR can save money. Attorneys'fees,court costs,and expert fees can be reduced or
avoided altogether.
ADR provides more participation. Parties have more opportunities with ADR to express
their interest and concerns,instead of focusing exclusively on legal rights.
ADR provides more control and flexibility. Parties can choose the ADR process that
is most likely to bring a satisfactory resolution to their dispute.
ADR can reduce stress. ADR encourages cooperation and communication,while {
discouraging the adversarial atmosphere of litigation. Surveys of parties who have participated
in an ADR process have found much greater satisfaction than with parties who have gone through
ADR PROCEDURES FOR THE COUNTY OF NEVADA SUPERIOR
COURT.
L Upon filing a complaint,the plaintifrwill receive this information sheet from the Superior Court
clerk. Plaintiff is expected to include this information sheet at the time of service of the
complaint on the defendant.
2. All parties to the dispute may voluntarily agree to take the matter to an ADR process. A
stipulation is attached. Parties choose and contact their own ADR provider. The court has a
binder containing resumes of mediators with both specialized training and experience.
This binder is available from the Superior Court Clerk,Law Library and Arbitration
Administrator. It is also available on line—Ilttp://courts.co.nevada ca us/
3. An initial Case Management Conference will be scheduled within 150 days of filing the
complaint. An original Case Management Conference Statement must be filed with the
clerk no later than 15 days before the scheduled Case Management Conference. The
assigned Judge will strongly encourage all parties and their counsel to consider and utilize ADR
procedures.
4. If the parties voluntarily agree to ADR,the parties will be required to sign a Stipulation and
Order to ADR The parties may contact an ADR Provider or review the ADR Binder(see item
2 above)for information on providers or arrange to speak with Arbitration Administrator(530)
582-7835.
5. Any ADR services shall be paid for by the parties pursuant to a separate ADR fee agreement.
The Judge or Arbitration Administrator may screen appropriate cases for a pro bono/modest
means referral when a party is income eligible.
6. The Court asks for your cooperation in completing the Mandatory ADR Information Form and
return to the court within 10 days of completion of the process. The form is attached or is
available on-AVR://courts.co.Nev2da.caus/.
Information: To request forms,or for more information contact,Arbitration Clerk, 10075 Levan
Ave.,Suite 301,Truckee,CA 96161. (530)582-7835 or fax to(530)582-7875.
s
t
E
f ATTORNEY OR PARTY VATHOWATTOPNEY#+ ..state WNnumGi aadadtresa): FORCOLRTMEOAEY
TELEPHONE No-* FM NO_
ATTORNEY FOR PAe N;
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF NEVADA
10075 Levon Avenuel,Suite 301
Truckee,CA 96161
TRUCKEE BRANCH
PiahtiflipeMfioner:
DefwWantlRespondent
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN ADR CASE NAIA*W
ursuant to CRC 51590.1,all parties stipulate to participate in mediation of this case.Any ADR Services shall be paid for by the
NTties pursuant to a separate ADR Fee Agreement
Te parties further stipulate:
That be appointed as the mediator.
Address:
City,State,Zp:
Phone Number.
That the court appoint a mediator,
understood that the ADR Information Form must be submitted by the parties and counsel at the conclusion of the case.
wwy(s)signing on behalf of their cset*s)have been given the au#w*to stipulate to mediation.
DATE
LUTE
DATE A
DATE
ROVED:
ED:
cn+s jEHecSae TniaT) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN ADR
e.'s E�Fo Y
ADR-101
FAME OF COURT: COUNTY OF NEVADA-TRUCKEE BRANCH
ADR Information Form
This form should be filled out and refumed, '
within 10 days of the resolution of the dispute, to:
1. Case name: No
2. Type of cM case: [3 PI/PD Auto ' Q PVPD-Other Q Conhact Q Other(specify):
1. Date complaint filed Date case resolved
1. Date of ADR conference 5. Number of parties
;. Amount in controversy 0$04$25,000 0$25,000-$50,000 0$50,0W4100,000 0 over$100,000(specify):
0 Plaintiffs Attorney 0 Cross Complaktenr3 Attorney S. 0 Defendants Attorney [3 Cross Defendants Attorney
noorxe
r¢evrar+e
Please indicate your relationship to the case:
[3 Plaintiff 0 Plavws attorney 0 Defendant 0 Defendants attorney
0 3rd party defendant 0 3rd party defendants attorney 0 Other(specify):
Dispute resolution process:
(I Mediation C]Arbitration []Neutral case evokition 0 Other(specify):
Now was case resolved?
a. 0 As a direct result of the ADR process.
b. 0 As an indirect result of the ADR process. c. 0 Resolution was unrelated to ADR process.
Check the closest dollar amount that you estimaie you saved (attorneys fees, expert witness fees, and other costs) by us-
ing this dispute resokuton process compared to resolving this case through litigation,whether by settlement or trial.
Cl$0 0$250 0$500 0$T5o 0$1,000 0 more than$1,000(specify):$
if the dispute resolution process caused a net Increase in your costs in this case, check the closest dollar amount of the
additional cost
L7$0 0$250 0$500 0$750 OVA() 0 more than$1,000(specify):$
Check the closest number of court days that you estimate the court saved (motions, hearings, conferences, trial, etc.) as a
result of thus case being referred to this dispute resolution process:
0 0 0 1 day C]more than 1 day(specify):
If the dispute resolution process caused a net increase in court time for this case, check the closest number of additional
port days:
0 0 1 day [3 more than 1 day(specify):
Nouid you be willing to consider using this dispute resolution process again? ()Yes 0 No
cacidnamb ADR INFORMATION FORM
loco y Fan
f,,ssrt
E r
orris ueryW Finns T4