# Tri-Dam v. Frazier

> District Court, E.D. California · January 18, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10032913

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** January 18, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10032913

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting 20 the defendants’ argument that the city needed to show that the defendants’ conduct caused “actual 21 harm” because such a showing is not required to prove a nuisance per se

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9 TRI-DAM, Case No. 1:20-cv-00408-SKO

10 Plaintiff, ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11 v. (Docs. 38, 45)
12
SCOTT FRAZIER,
13
Defendant.
14 _____________________________________/

15
16
17 I. INTRODUCTION
18 Plaintiff Tri-Dam (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Scott Frazier
19 (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for violation of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C.
20 § 825p, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and interference with express easement. (Doc.
21 1 (“Compl.”).) On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its
22 public and private nuisance claims, and Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or,
23 alternatively, partial summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, on all of Plaintiff’s claims.
24 (Docs. 38, 45.) The parties filed their respective oppositions on November 17, 2021, and their
25 respective replies on November 24, 2021. (Docs. 46, 50, 51, 52.) After reviewing the parties’
26 papers, the matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule
27 230(g), and the Court vacated the hearing set for December 1, 2021. (Doc. 53.)
28
1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment will be
2 granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or, alternatively,
3 partial summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, will be granted in part and denied in part.1
4 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5 Plaintiff, a joint venture between the South San Joaquin Irrigation District and Oakdale
6 Irrigation District, owns and operates the Tulloch Hydroelectric Project No. 2067 (the “Project”)
7 located near Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, California, pursuant to a license issued by the
8 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). (Doc. 44, Declaration of Jarom Zimmerman
9 (“Zimmerman Decl.”) at ¶¶ 3–4; Doc. 44-1, Resolution re: Joint Cooperation on Proposed Storage
10 Projects on Stanislaus River (“Resolution”); Doc. 44-2, Order Issuing New License (“FERC
11 License”); Doc. 50-8, Plaintiff’s Statement of Disputed Facts (“PSDF”) 1.). The boundary of the
12 Project extends approximately 1,638 acres and includes all the land within the 515-foot elevation
13 contour surrounding the Tulloch Reservoir (the “Project Boundary”). (FERC License at 3.) The
14 high water mark of the Tulloch Reservoir (the “Reservoir”) is 510 feet. (Id.; Doc. 44-3, Tulloch
15 Reservoir Shoreline Management Plan, May 2015 (“SMP”) at 4-3.) Sixty-one percent of the land
16 within the Project Boundary is privately owned, twenty-six percent of the land is owned by Plaintiff,
17 and twelve percent is owned by either the State of California or the federal government. (FERC
18 License at 3.)
19 Plaintiff’s initial license from FERC permitted it to begin operating the Project on January
20 1, 1955, for a term ending December 31, 2004.2 (FERC License at 1; SMP at 1-1.) That license
21 provided Plaintiff with authority to grant permission for use of lands within the Project Boundary.
22 (Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 9.) In 2002, Plaintiff developed a shoreline management plan (“SMP”) in
23 anticipation of obtaining a new license for the Project. (Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 6.) Between 2004
24 and 2006, while Plaintiff’s application for a new license was pending, Plaintiff operated the Project
25 under an annual license. (Id. at ¶ 9.) In 2006, FERC issued a new license to Plaintiff for a term of
26

27 1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Docs. 9, 10.)
2 The license was initially issued on August 28, 1951, but the effective date of the license was subsequently changed to
28 January 1, 1955. See Oakdale Irrigation Dist. & S. San Joaquin Irrigation Dist., 14 F.P.C. 567 (1955).
1 39 years and 11 months. (Id. at ¶ 7; FERC License at 16.) Article 413 of the FERC license provides
2 Plaintiff the authority to approve of certain types of use and occupancy of Project lands and waters,
3 such as boat docks, without having to first seek FERC approval. (FERC License at 29.) That year,
4 FERC also ratified the 2002 SMP, which described the minor shoreline development projects
5 subject to Plaintiff’s approval authority under Article 413 and set forth the permitting process.
6 (PSDF 7; Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 6; FERC License at 29.) In 2015, at FERC’s request, Plaintiff filed
7 a revised SMP, which was approved on September 8, 2016, and has been in effect since that time.
8 (PSDF 10; Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 8; see SMP.)
9 Plaintiff’s FERC license requires it to obtain control of all lands necessary for operation and
10 maintenance of the Project. (FERC License at 34–35.) In 1957, Plaintiff obtained a flowage
11 easement to property owned by Joe Sanguinetti within the Project Boundary (the “Flowage
12 Easement”). (Doc. 42, Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Partial Summary
13 Judgment (“RJN”), Exhibit A.) The Flowage Easement applied to nine parcels of land owned by
14 Sanguinetti and was set forth in the recorded conveyance of the Flowage Easement in a description
15 of metes and bounds. (Id.) One of the rights granted by the Flowage Easement was “to enter upon
16 said land from time to time and clear, destroy, or dispose of any timber or other natural growth, and
17 any obstructions, accumulations, trash, filth and any other thing which would in any way interfere
18 with the use of said reservoir, or the waters therein, or tend to render unsafe or unsanitary either the
19 reservoir created by said Dam or the margin thereof.” (Id.; PSDF 3.)
20 On September 16, 2008, the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) passed
21 Ordinance Number 2957, adding Sections 20.10.100 to 20.10.200 (the “Ordinance”) to the
22 Calaveras County Municipal Code. (RJN, Exhibit C; see also Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code
23 §§ 20.10.100 et seq.) The Ordinance provides:
24 A. All facilities installed, constructed or maintained within the reservoir and FERC
project boundary shall be in full compliance with appropriate permitting regulations
25 of the county and Tri-Dam.
26 B. No facility shall be installed, constructed or maintained within the FERC project
boundary unless a permit has been issued by the county and an encroachment permit
27 has been issue by the Tri-Dam Project.
28 C. The county and Tri-Dam Project shall work in concert to ensure the safe and
1
D. Any dock, building or structure set up, erected, built, moved or maintained or any
2 use of property contrary to the provisions of this chapter is unlawful and constitutes
a public nuisance . . . . All docks and facilities installed within the FERC project
3 boundary shall be concurrently reviewed and permitted by the county and the Tri-
Dam Project prior to installation. The county shall not issue a permit without prior
4 approval from the Tri-Dam Project. Any dock or other facility installed prior to 1979
shall be considered “grandfathered” into legal existence. Any expansion,
5 reconstruction or other alteration shall be subject to full compliance with current
regulations.
6
7 Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.120.
8 Defendant owns the property located at 7540 O’Byrnes Ferry Road, Copperopolis,
9 California (the “Property”). (Doc. 45-2, Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“DSUF”) 1;
10 Doc. 45-1, Declaration of Scott Frazier (“Frazier Decl.”) at ¶ 2.) In 2011, Defendant purchased
11 Spica Holdings LLC, the company that owned the Property at the time, and subsequently transferred
12 the Property to his name in 2019. (DSUF at 1; Frazier Decl. at ¶ 2.) There is a dock, three personal
13 watercraft ports, and a waterslide (the “Contested Facilities”), all of which are unpermitted, on the
14 Property. (Doc. 43, Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“PSUF”) 6, 7, 8; DSUF 2; Frazier
15 Decl. at ¶ 2.)
16 III. LEGAL STANDARDS
17 A. Motion for Summary Judgment
18 Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, disclosure materials, discovery, and
19 any affidavits provided establish that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
20 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material fact is one that
21 may affect the outcome of the case under the applicable law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
22 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
23 return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.” Id.
24 The party seeking summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of informing
25 the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings,
26 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
27 which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.
28 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). The exact nature of this
1 responsibility, however, varies depending on whether the issue on which summary judgment is
2 sought is one in which the movant or the nonmoving party carries the ultimate burden of proof. See
3 Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). If the movant will have the
4 burden of proof at trial, it must demonstrate, with affirmative evidence, that “no reasonable trier of
5 fact could find other than for the moving party.” Id. By contrast, if the nonmoving party will have
6 the burden of proof at trial, “the movant can prevail merely by pointing out that there is an absence
7 of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323).
8 If the movant satisfies its initial burden, then the nonmoving party must go beyond the
9 allegations in its pleadings to “show a genuine issue of material fact by presenting affirmative
10 evidence from which a jury could find in [its] favor.” FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 929 (9th
11 Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). “[B]ald assertions or a mere scintilla of evidence” will not suffice
12 in this respect. Id. at 929; see also Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
13 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent
14 must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”)
15 (footnote omitted). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find
16 for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting
17 First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).
18 In resolving a summary judgment motion, “the court does not make credibility
19 determinations or weigh conflicting evidence.” Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984. That remains the
20 province of the jury or fact finder. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Instead, “[t]he evidence of the
21 non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id.
22 Inferences, however, are not drawn out of the air; the nonmoving party must produce a factual
23 predicate from which the inference may reasonably be drawn. See Richards v. Nielsen Freight
24 Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244–45 (E.D. Cal. 1985), aff’d, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987).
25 B. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment on the pleadings
27 “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The
28 “same standard of review applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion applies to a Rule 12(c) motion.”
1 Howell v. Leprino Foods Co., No. 18-01404, 2020 WL 704778, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2020)
2 (citing to Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)). The court draws
3 reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor and accepts the complaint’s allegations as
4 true. Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). “A judgment on the pleadings is
5 properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings as true, the
6 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, 179
7 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999).
8 IV. DISCUSSION
9 A. Request for Judicial Notice
10 Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of: (1) the recorded conveyance of a
11 flowage easement from Joe Sanguinetti to Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin
12 Irrigation District, recorded by the Calaveras County Recorder on November 18, 1957, in Book 114
13 of Official Records (RJN, Exhibit A); (2) the grant deed regarding the property located at 7540
14 O’Byrnes Ferry Road, Copperopolis, California, 95228, reflecting the grant of the property to
15 Defendant Scott Frazier, recorded in Calaveras County on November 26, 2018 (RJN, Exhibit B);
16 (3) Chapter 20.10 of the Calaveras County Municipal Code (RJN, Exhibit C; Doc. 50-6, Request
17 for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or
18 Partial Summary Judgment, Exhibit A); and (4) the records, pleadings, factual findings, and other
19 documents already filed in the instant case (Docs. 1–45), as well as the cases of Tri-Dam v.
20 Schediwy, No. 1:11–CV–01141–AWI–MJS, 2014 WL 897337 (E.D. Cal.); and Tri-Dam v. Yick,
21 No. 1:11–cv–01301–AWI–SMS, 2016 WL 4061348 (E.D. Cal.). (Docs. 42, 50-6.) Defendant did
22 not file any objections to Plaintiff’s request. (See Docket.)
23 Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED, to the extent that facts within the records
24 are undisputed.3 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a court
25

26 3 Although the Court may take judicial notice of its own docket, it is unnecessary for a party to make such a request for
judicial notice. See Chaffey Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. FieldTurf USA, Inc., No. No. EDCV 16–204 JGB (DTBx),
27 2017 WL 3048658, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2017) (“The Court may of course take judicial notice of filings and
pleadings on its own docket . . . . But such requests are unnecessary; [the defendants] may cite directly to the docket to
28 reference such orders.”); John Brown Univ. v. Charisma in Missions, Inc., No. 15–cv–08890 AB (AGRx), 2016 WL
1 may take notice of matters of public record); Cousyn for Cousyn Grading and Demo Inc. v. Ford
2 Motor Company, No. ED CV 17–2051–DOC (KKx), 2019 WL 3491930, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 30,
3 2019) (“[E]ven when the court judicially notices the existence of a reliable source, it may not notice
4 disputed facts contained within the source.”); see also Darling Int’l, Inc. v. Baywood Partners, Inc.,
5 No. C-05-3758 EMC, 2005 WL 8162725, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2005) (taking judicial notice of
6 grant deeds, leases, and easement agreements recorded in the official records of Sonoma County);
7 Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007)
8 (“Municipal ordinances are proper subjects for judicial notice.”); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d
9 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases[.]”).
10 B. Evidence Before the Court
11 In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court examines the evidence provided
12 by the parties, including pleadings, deposition testimony, answer to interrogatories, and admissions
13 on file. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). On a motion for summary judgment, “[a] party may object that
14 the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible
15 in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). “To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily
16 have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies
17 the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.” Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d
18 410, 418–19 (9th Cir. 2001). “Even if the non-moving party’s evidence is presented in a form that
19 is currently inadmissible, such evidence may be evaluated on a motion for summary judgment so
20 long as the moving party’s objections could be cured at trial.” AtPac, Inc. v. Aptitude Sols., Inc.,
21 787 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1110 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “This court has always interpreted Rule 56(c)(2) to
22 require that an objection to a proffer of evidence on the ground of inadmissibility must be based on
23 the impossibility of producing the evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial.” Honnevk
24 v. Farmers New World Live Ins. Co., No. 1:11–CV–1531–AWI–DLB, 2013 WL 3733610, at *5
25 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2013).
26 Defendant has filed numerous evidentiary objections to evidence submitted by Plaintiff in
27 support of its motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 49.) Specifically, Defendant asserts
28 objections based on lack of foundation, improper expert opinion, hearsay, and authenticity. (See
1 Doc. 49.) The Court has reviewed each of Defendant’s objections and finds that Defendant has not
2 demonstrated that Plaintiff would be unable to produce the objected-to-evidence in a form that
3 would be admissible at trial. See Burch v. Regents of Univ. of California, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110,
4 1120 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (“When evidence is not presented in an admissible form in the context of a
5 motion for summary judgment, but it may be presented in an admissible form at trial, a court may
6 still consider that evidence.”) (emphasis in original); see also City of Lincoln v. United States, No.
7 2:16–CV–1164–KJM–AC, 2020 WL 5107613, at *5 n.3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) (overruling
8 objections based on lack of foundation for purposes of summary judgment motion); Russell v.
9 Walmart Inc., No. CV 19–5495–MWF (JCX), 2020 WL 5289889, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020)
10 (overruling “garden variety evidentiary objections” based on foundation, authenticity, and hearsay
11 grounds).4 Therefore, Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence are OVERRULED.
12 C. First Cause of Action for Violation of the Federal Power Act, FERC
Regulations, and the Shoreline Management Plan
13
Defendant moves for partial summary judgment, or, alternatively, judgment on the
14
pleadings, on Plaintiff’s first cause of action for violation of the FPA, FERC regulations, and the
15
SMP based on failure to state a cause of action. (Doc. 45 at 8–9.) In the order denying Defendant’s
16
motion to dismiss, this Court determined that the FPA does not provide a cause of action under
17
which Plaintiff can sue Defendant for his failure to obtain permits in accordance with the SMP. (See
18
Doc. 37 at 6–8.) As explained in that order (see id.), “[n]umerous courts, under varying sets of facts,
19
have held that the FPA does not create a general, private cause of action.” Blocktree Properties,
20
LLC v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty. Washington, 447 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1043–44 (E.D.
21
Wash. 2020), aff’d sub nom. Cytline, LLC v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty., Washington, 849
22
F. App’x 656 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing City of Gainesville v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 488 F. Supp.
23

24 4 For example, Defendant objects, on the basis of lack of foundation and improper expert opinion, to the following
statement in Zimmerman’s declaration: “I am informed and believe that Tulloch Reservoir is a navigable waterway of
25 the United States.” (Doc. 49 at 2.) As Plaintiff points out (Doc. 52-1 at 3–4), that Tulloch Reservoir is a navigable
waterway of the United States is a fact that can readily be determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be
26 questioned, see 10 FPC 1278, 1280 (1951) (“The [Federal Power] Commission finds: (1) The proposed Tulloch project
would affect the navigable capacity of the San Joaquin River and the interests of interstate or foreign commerce therein.
27 (2) A considerable portion of the lands affected by the proposed project are public lands of the United States.”), and
thus judicially noticeable. See Fed. R. Evid. 201 (allowing judicial notice of facts that are generally known within the
28 court’s territorial jurisdiction or can be readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
1 1258, 1275 (S.D. Fla. 1980) (“[T]his Court concludes that there exists no private right of action of
2 the nature sought by the plaintiffs under the Federal Power Act.”); Coalition for Competitive
3 Electricity, Dynegy Inc., v. Zibelman, 272 F. Supp. 3d 554, 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (explaining that
4 the omission of a general private cause of action in the FPA should be construed as intentional);
5 Village of Old Mill Creek v. Star, Nos. 17–CV–1163 and 17–CV–1164, 2017 WL 3008289, at *8
6 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2017) (finding that 16 U.S.C. § 824d, located in Part II of the FPA, requires “just
7 and reasonable” rates, but that FERC must enforce those rates); see also Carrington v. City of
8 Tacoma, Dep’t of Pub. Utilities, Light Div., 276 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1043 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (“It is
9 well-established that § 10(c) [of the FPA] does not create a private right of action.”) (citing
10 Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506, 519 (9th Cir. 2005)). Accordingly,
11 Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s first cause of action for violations
12 of the FPA, FERC regulations, and the SMP will be granted.
13 D. Third Cause of Action for Private Nuisance
14 The Court now turns to the third cause of action for private nuisance before addressing
15 Plaintiff’s second cause of action.
16 Under California law, a nuisance is “[a]nything which is injurious to health . . . , or is
17 indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere
18 with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use,
19 in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public
20 park, square, street, or highway.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3479. A nuisance may be a public nuisance, a
21 private nuisance, or both. Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 22 Cal. App. 3d 116, 124
22 (1971). “A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or
23 neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or
24 damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3480. Every other nuisance
25 is private. Cal. Civ. Code § 3481.
26 A private nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and
27 enjoyment of land. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 4th 893, 937 (1996).
28 The elements of a private nuisance claim are: (1) interference with use and enjoyment of the
1 plaintiff’s property that is (2) substantial, “i.e., that it caused the plaintiff to suffer ‘substantial actual
2 damage,’” and (3) unreasonable. Id. at 937–98. “‘[A]ny interest sufficient to be dignified as a
3 property right’ will support an action based on a private nuisance[.]” Venuto, 22 Cal. App. 3d at
4 125. Whether an interference is substantial and unreasonable is judged by an objective standard of
5 a reasonable person. Id. at 938. In assessing substantial interference, “[i]f normal persons in that
6 locality would not be substantially annoyed or disturbed by the situation, then the invasion is not a
7 significant one, even though the idiosyncrasies [sic] of the particular plaintiff may make it
8 unendurable to him.” Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821F, com. d (1979)). “The
9 primary test for determining whether the invasion is unreasonable is whether the gravity of the harm
10 outweighs the social utility of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. Both parties move for partial summary
11 judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for private nuisance. (Doc. 39 at 19–21; Doc. 45 at 14–16.) The
12 Court addresses each element of the private nuisance claim in turn.
13 To establish the first element, Plaintiff asserts that it owns approximately 25 percent of land
14 within the Project Boundary and possesses flowage easements for the remainder of the private
15 property in the Reservoir, and the Contested Facilities interfere with both of these property interests.
16 (Doc. 39 at 20.) With regard to the former property interest—Plaintiff’s land in the Reservoir—it
17 is unclear to the Court how the Contested Facilities interfere with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of
18 that property. Plaintiff has not identified where in the Project Boundary any of its land is located,
19 nor has it explained how the Contested Facilities specifically interfere with Plaintiff’s land. In its
20 briefing, Plaintiff makes only the following cursory argument regarding interference based on an
21 alleged violation of the SMP:
22 This Court has already recognized that a violation of the SMP irreparably injures
[Plaintiff]. [Citation.] [The Contested Facilities] violate the SMP, which Plaintiff
23 obtained so that it could control the Project Boundary consistent with its FERC
license. [The Contested Facilities] within the Project Boundary therefore interfere
24 with [Plaintiff’s] intended use and enjoyment of its property and its ability to
maintain compliance with FERC directives.
25
26 (Doc. 39 at 20.) A violation of the SMP, however, does not necessarily constitute interference with
27 Plaintiff’s property. See, e.g., Tri-Dam v. Schediwy, No. 1:11–CV–01141–AWI, 2014 WL 897337,
28 at *10 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2014) (“Despite the fact that the parties agree that there is evidence of
1 violation of the SMP, Tri–Dam has failed to establish that the violation of the SMP would in fact
2 violate the easement.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that the Contested Facilities interfere,
3 much less substantially and unreasonably interfere, with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its land
4 within the Tulloch Reservoir.
5 Plaintiff also asserts substantial and unreasonable interference with its Flowage Easement.
6 (Compl. at ¶ 57; Doc. 39 at 20.) According to Plaintiff, its FERC license requires it to obtain control
7 of all lands necessary for operation and maintenance of the Project (Doc. 39 at 9; FERC License at
8 34–35), so in 1957, Plaintiff obtained the Flowage Easement from Sanguinetti. (RJN, Exhibit A.)
9 The parties dispute whether the Flowage Easement burdens Defendant’s Property. (Doc. 39
10 at 11; Doc. 46 at 12–13.) Defendant contends that the recorded conveyance of the Flowage
11 Easement contains a lengthy description of metes and bounds, and this description “is far beyond
12 the ability of any ordinary person to interpret, and there is no attached map.” (Doc. 46 at 13.) Thus,
13 Defendant asserts that “[o]nly an expert can testify to what part of [Defendant’s] property is
14 encumbered by the easement, and what part is not,” and because Plaintiff has not submitted expert
15 testimony, Plaintiff cannot prove this point. (Id.) This contention is unavailing.
16 In Tri-Dam v. Michael, No. 1:11–CV–2138–AWI–SMS, 2014 WL 1285644 (E.D. Cal. Mar.
17 28, 2014), the Court rejected a similar argument by the defendant that Plaintiff could not prove that
18 the Flowage Easement burdened the defendant’s property. Id. at *4. The Court noted that “[a]
19 recitation of meets [sic] and bounds without production of documents explaining that [the
20 defendant’s] land falls within the description is inadequate to prove to this Court that the [s]ubject
21 [p]roperty is burdened by the easement.” Id. But because Plaintiff had also produced deposition
22 testimony from the defendant’s husband “indicating his awareness that the [s]ubject [p]roperty [wa]s
23 burdened by the easement,” the Court found that, taking the recorded conveyance of the Flowage
24 Easement and the deposition testimony together, “no reasonable trier of fact could find that the
25 [Flowage Easement] did not burden the [s]ubject [p]roperty.” Id.
26 Here, Plaintiff has produced a copy of the recorded conveyance of the Flowage Easement
27 and deposition testimony from Defendant indicating his awareness that his Property is burdened by
28 the Easement. (RJN, Exhibit A; Doc. 40, Exhibit A, Deposition of Scott Frazier (“Frazier Dep.”) at
1 38:20–42:5.) Defendant, on the other hand, has adduced no evidence demonstrating that his
2 Property is not burdened by the Flowage Easement. Therefore, as in Michael, the Court finds that
3 “Plaintiff’s proffered evidence is such that no reasonable jury could . . . make the determination that
4 [Defendant’s] Property is not burdened by the easement.” Michael, 2014 WL 1285644, at *4.
5 The Flowage Easement grants Plaintiff the right to “enter upon said land . . . and clear,
6 destroy, or dispose of . . . any obstructions . . . and any other thing which would in any way interfere
7 with the use of said reservoir, or the waters therein, or tend to render unsafe or unsanitary either the
8 reservoir created by said Dam or the margin thereof.” (RJN, Exhibit A (emphasis added).) In
9 considering this same easement, the Court in Schediwy found that “[t]his language is onerous but
10 unambiguous. [Plaintiff] has the right to destroy, clear or dispose of anything that in any way
11 interferes with [Plaintiff’s] use of the reservoir or with the waters.” Schediwy, 2014 WL 897337, at
12 *9. The photographs submitted by Plaintiff show the waterslide extending from the Property over
13 the water’s edge, and the dock and personal watercraft ports sitting over and into the Reservoir
14 waters. (Doc. 41, Exhibits A & B.) Plaintiff contends that the Contested Facilities “siphon water
15 from the lake” and “extend into the reservoir, impeding the free flow of water,” thus interfering with
16 Plaintiff’s flowage easement. (Doc. 52 at 8; Frazier Dep. 51:3–11.)
17 Whether that claimed interference is substantial and unreasonable, however, is disputed by
18 the parties. (See Doc. 39 at 21; Doc. 46 at 18–19.) Plaintiff contends that the interference is
19 unreasonable because the only social utility in Defendant’s conduct in maintaining the Contested
20 Facilities “is to [Defendant] himself and his guests,” and this does not outweigh Plaintiff’s “rights
21 and responsibilities in maintaining order on the Reservoir in conformity with its FERC license.”
22 (Doc. 39 at 21.) Defendant counters that there is no substantial and unreasonable interference given
23 that Plaintiff waited decades to sue based on the Contested Facilities.5 (Doc. 46 at 18–19.)
24 Defendant further contends that partial summary judgment should be granted in his favor because
25 the Contested Facilities are consistent with, and in fact advance, the SMP’s goals of “enhancing the
26 quality of recreational opportunities at the reservoir[.]” (Doc. 45 at 15–16.) Thus, Defendant claims
27

28 5 As discussed below, the parties dispute when the dock was constructed, which bears on when Plaintiff first learned of
1 that, because the Contested Facilities are consistent with Plaintiff’s goals for the Reservoir, there
2 can be no interference with Plaintiff’s property interests. (Id.)
3 Given the parties’ competing claims, the Court finds that granting summary judgment for
4 either party is not appropriate, because issues of substantial interference and unreasonableness are
5 questions of fact for the jury, to be determined in light of all of the circumstances in a given case.
6 San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 13 Cal. 4th 893 at 938–39 (observing that issue of substantial harm “is,
7 of course, a question of fact that turns on the circumstances of each case,” and “‘[f]undamentally,
8 the unreasonableness of intentional invasions is a problem of relative values to be determined by
9 the trier of fact in each case in the light of all the circumstances of that case.’ [Citation.]”); Hellman
10 v. La Cumbre Golf & Country Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1231 (1992) (“Determination whether
11 something . . . is a nuisance in fact in a particular instance, is a question for the trier of fact.”).
12 Based on the foregoing, both motions for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s third cause
13 of action for private nuisance will be denied.
14 E. Second Cause of Action for Public Nuisance
15 “A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or
16 neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or
17 damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3480. Unlike an action for
18 private nuisance, “property interests are not required to bring a cause of action for public nuisance.”
19 Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, 14 Cal. App. 5th 343, 402 (2017).
20 Plaintiff asserts two theories in support of its claim for public nuisance: nuisance per se and common
21 law public nuisance. (Compl. at ¶¶ 43–51; Doc. 39 at 14–19.) Both parties move for partial
22 summary judgment on the public nuisance claim. (Doc. 38 at 14–19; Doc. 45 at 9–16.) For the
23 reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted, and Defendant’s motion will be denied.
24 1. Standing
25 Because actions for public nuisance are “aimed at the protection and redress of community
26 interests,” People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal. 4th 1090, 1103 (1997) (emphasis in original), as a
27 general rule, only public entities authorized by law may sue for a public nuisance on behalf of the
28 community. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3494 (“A public nuisance may be abated by any public body or
1 officer authorized thereto by law.”). A private person, however, may maintain an action for a public
2 nuisance, “if it is specially injurious to himself, but not otherwise.” Cal. Civ. Code. § 3493.
3 Plaintiff contends it meets the requirements for standing under California Civil Code § 3934
4 (“Section 3934”) because it is a public agency, and its FERC license authorizes it to abate public
5 nuisances. (Doc. 39 at 13; Doc. 52 at 5.) Plaintiff alternatively contends it has standing as a private
6 entity under California Civil Code § 3493 (“Section 3493”). (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the Contested
7 Facilities are “specially injurious” to Plaintiff because they are unpermitted, given Plaintiff’s
8 obligation under its FERC license to regulate the Project Boundary, Plaintiff’s failure to address
9 unpermitted facilities could lead to the revocation of its license. (Doc. 39 at 13–14; Doc. 52 at 10.)
10 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue for a public nuisance under either theory. (Doc.
11 46 at 13–16.) For standing under Section 3494, Defendant contends that Plaintiff is neither a public
12 agency, nor authorized by law to abate public nuisances. (Id. at 13–14.) As for Section 3493,
13 Defendant claims that Plaintiff cannot prove the Contested Facilities are “within” Plaintiff’s
14 easement, and that the facilities are “specially injurious” to it. (Id. at 14.)
15 To have standing under Section 3494, Plaintiff must be (1) a public body and (2) authorized
16 by law to abate public nuisances. Cal. Civ. Code § 3494. Plaintiff is a joint venture between the
17 Oakdale Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, which are both public
18 agencies. See California State Grange v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1146
19 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (noting that the Oakdale Irrigation District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation
20 District are “public agencies organized and operating pursuant to California Law [Cal. Water Code
21 §§ 20500 et seq.].”).6 (Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 3; Resolution.) California law defines a “public
22 agency” to include “any joint powers authority formed” by any existing public agencies. Cal. Gov’t.
23 Code § 6500. As Plaintiff was formed via a joint power agreement between two public agencies,
24 Plaintiff is also a public agency.
25 Plaintiff, however, is not authorized by law to abate public nuisances. In Lamont Storm
26 Water District v. Pavich, 78 Cal. App. 4th 1081 (2000), the California Court of Appeal held that
27

28 6 Plaintiff is governed by a joint board of directors comprised of the five-member boards of the Oakdale Irrigation
1 only public bodies explicitly authorized to abate a public nuisance may do so. Id. at 1084–85. The
2 plaintiff in Lamont was a storm water district created pursuant to the Storm Water District Act of
3 1909, Cal. Water Code App. §§ 13-1 et seq., with the power to sue and be sued and to “do any and
4 all other acts and things necessary or required for the protection of the lands in said district from
5 damage from storm waters and from waters of any innavigable stream, watercourse, canyon or
6 wash[.]” Id. at 1084. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the general power to sue and be sued did
7 not constitute authorization to abate public nuisances because “when the Legislature has intended
8 to grant the power to abate a nuisance, it has done so specifically and in clear terms.” Id. For
9 example, in addition to authorizing sanitary districts to sue and be sued in California Health and
10 Safety Code § 6511, the state legislature specifically provided in Health and Safety Code § 6523.3
11 that the “district may also petition the superior court for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent
12 injunction . . . restraining any person from the continued violation of any ordinance of the district.”
13 Id. at 1085. Other examples include California Civil Procedure Code § 731, which specifically
14 grants county district attorneys and city attorneys the authority to abate a public nuisance, and
15 California Health and Safety Code § 2060, which expressly gives mosquito abatement and vector
16 control districts the authority to abate public nuisances. Id. Noting the absence of any similar
17 provision in the Storm Water District Act, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff storm water
18 district could not maintain a public nuisance action. Id.
19 Here, Plaintiff points to its FERC license as its source of authority for abating public
20 nuisances: “Not only is [Plaintiff] authorized to abate public nuisances such as the ones at issue
21 here—unpermitted facilities on the reservoir—it is required to abate them under its FERC license.”
22 (Doc. 52 at 5.) In asserting its alleged authority to abate nuisances, Plaintiff makes vague references
23 to “the entire statutory and administrative context of [Plaintiff’s] authority and responsibilities as a
24 licensee under the Federal Powers Act, its license with [FERC], and the operative [SMP].” (Id.)
25 This is insufficient to meet the level of specificity demanded in Lamont. Plaintiff has not identified
26 any statute, or provision in its FERC license, that expressly authorizes it to abate public nuisances.
27 The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff is not authorized to abate public nuisances and thus does
28 not have standing under Section 3494.
1 This is not, however, the end of the standing inquiry. “A public agency may bring a nuisance
2 cause of action on its own behalf to the same extent as a private plaintiff, and under theories of both
3 private and public nuisance, where the public agency’s own property rights are affected by the
4 nuisance.” Orange Cnty. Water Dist., 14 Cal. App. 5th at 402; Cal. Code Civ. P. § 731 (“An action
5 may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment
6 is lessened by a nuisance, as defined in Section 3479 of the Civil Code, and by the judgment in that
7 action the nuisance may be enjoined or abated as well as damages recovered therefor.”). Here,
8 Plaintiff contends that the Contested Facilities interfere with Plaintiff’s Flowage Easement and real
9 property on the Tulloch Reservoir. (Compl. at ¶¶ 54, 57; Doc. 39 at 20.) Thus, the Court considers
10 whether Plaintiff has standing to bring a public nuisance claim as a private party under Section 3494.
11 A private plaintiff must suffer a special injury to maintain an action for public nuisance. See
12 Cal. Civ. Code § 3493. That is, the damage suffered by the plaintiff “must be different in kind and
13 not merely in degree from that suffered by other members of the public.” Koll-Irvine Ctr. Prop.
14 Owners Ass’n v. Cnty. of Orange, 24 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1040 (1994); see also Schaeffer v. Gregory
15 Village Partners, L.P., 105 F. Supp. 3d 951, 966 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (in an action for public nuisance,
16 “the plaintiff’s harm must be different from the type of harm suffered by the general public”).
17 However, “[a] property interest sufficient to support a cause of action for private nuisance is
18 generally sufficient to support a cause of action for public nuisance as well.” Orange Cnty. Water
19 Dist., 14 Cal. App. 5th at 416–17; Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, 169 Cal. App. 4th 1540, 1551
20 (2009) (“[W]hen the nuisance is a private as well as a public one, there is no requirement the plaintiff
21 suffer damage different in kind from that suffered by the general public.”). This is because “a private
22 nuisance is a civil wrong based on disturbance of rights in land while a public nuisance is not
23 dependent upon a disturbance of rights in land but upon an interference with the rights of the
24 community at large.” Venuto, 22 Cal. App. 3d at 114.
25 As discussed above (see Section IV.D.), because the Court has determined that Plaintiff has
26 a cognizable private nuisance claim, Plaintiff also has standing to assert a public nuisance claim.
27 See Andrews v. Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P., No. CV154113PSGJEMX, 2020 WL 1650031 (C.D.
28 Cal. Mar. 17, 2020) (declining to reach the question of special injury where the plaintiffs had a
1 private nuisance claim).
2 2. Nuisance Per Se
3 “[A] nuisance per se arises when a legislative body with appropriate jurisdiction, in the
4 exercise of the police power, expressly declares a particular object or substance, activity, or
5 circumstance, to be a nuisance.” People ex rel. Trutanich v. Joseph, 204 Cal. App. 4th 1512, 1524
6 (2012) (quoting Beck Dev. Co. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 44 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1206 (1996)).
7 California Government Code § 38771 (“Section 38771”) provides: “By ordinance the city legislative
8 body may declare what constitutes a nuisance.” See also City of Bakersfield v. Miller, 64 Cal. 2d
9 93, 100 (1966) (noting that a city “has the power to define by statue the standards by which courts
10 are to judge whether a nuisance exists” pursuant to Section 38771).
11 “[T]o be considered a nuisance per se the object, substance, activity or circumstance at issue
12 must be expressly declared to be a nuisance by its very existence by some applicable law.” Beck
13 Dev. Co., 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1207. “When a statute identifies an object, substance, activity, or
14 circumstance to be a nuisance, the Court asks only (1) whether the statute has been violated and (2)
15 whether the statute is constitutional.” Tri-Dam v. Yick, No. 1:11–CV–01301–AWI–SMS, 2016 WL
16 4061348, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2016) (citing Net Connection Hayward, LLC v. City of Hayward,
17 No. C 13–1212 SC, 2013 WL 3786635, *8 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013); Miller, 64 Cal. 2d at 100). “If
18 the answer to both questions is yes, then no additional showing need be made in order to abate the
19 nuisance.” Id. (citing City of Claremont v. Kruse, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1153, 1166 (2009) (rejecting
20 the defendants’ argument that the city needed to show that the defendants’ conduct caused “actual
21 harm” because such a showing is not required to prove a nuisance per se)).
22 Here, the Ordinance provides that “[a]ny dock, building or structure set up, erected, built,
23 moved or maintained” without complying with the relevant permitting requirements “is unlawful
24 and constitutes a public nuisance.” Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.120. Furthermore,
25 “[a]ny dock or other facility installed prior to 1979 shall be considered ‘grandfathered’ into legal
26 existence. Any expansion, reconstruction or other alteration shall be subject to full compliance with
27 current regulations.” Id.
28 Plaintiff contends that it is undisputed that Defendant does not have permits from Plaintiff
1 for any of the Contested Facilities, and thus, each of Defendant’s dock, personal watercraft ports,
2 and waterslide constitute a separate public nuisance per se. (Doc. 39 at 14–16.) Defendant responds
3 first that Plaintiff cannot prove that the Contested Facilities are within the Project Boundary. (Doc.
4 46 at 10–12.) Second, Defendant claims that the Contested Facilities are grandfathered by the SMP
5 and/or the Ordinance based on their dates of construction. (Id. at 7–8.) Third, Defendant claims
6 that he has “not personally violate[d]” the Ordinance because the contested facilities were already
7 in existence at the time Defendant acquired an ownership interest in the Property in 2011. (Id. at 8–
8 10.) Lastly, Defendants asserts that the Ordinance should not be construed to apply retroactively,
9 and any such application to the Contested Facilities would be unconstitutional because the Contested
10 Facilities were already in existence at the time of the Ordinance’s enactment. (Doc. 45 at 12–14.)
11 The Court addresses the parties’ contentions in turn.
12 a. The Project Boundary
13 Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the grounds that
14 Plaintiff cannot prove that the Contested Facilities are within the Project Boundary and thus subject
15 to the Ordinance. (Doc. 46 at 10–12.) Specifically, Defendant contends that location of the Project
16 Boundary is within the knowledge of experts only, and Plaintiff has not identified any experts in
17 support of its claims. (Id. at 11.)
18 The Project Boundary is defined as the 515-foot elevation contour surrounding the
19 Reservoir. (FERC License at 3.) Defendant does not dispute that the high water mark of the Tulloch
20 Reservoir is 510 feet. (Id.; SMP at 4-3.) Plaintiff has submitted photographs of the Contested
21 Facilities showing the dock and personal watercraft ports sitting on the water and extending into the
22 Reservoir. (Doc. 41, Exhibits A & B.) This would lead an ordinary person to conclude that all of
23 the water, which reaches a maximum level of 510 feet, is thus below the 515-foot elevation contour,
24 i.e., the Project Boundary, and by extension, anything touching the water, e.g., the personal
25 watercraft ports and dock, must also be within the Project Boundary.
26 With regard to the waterslide, the photographs show the opening of the waterslide extending
27 above the edge of the Property. (Frazier Dep., Exhibits 2 & 3; Doc. 41, Exhibit A.) Two of the
28 photographs show a bar extending from the ground, supporting the waterslide’s opening. (Frazier
1 Dep., Exhibit 3; Doc. 41, Exhibit A.) A white pipe that extends into the Reservoir and draws water
2 can be seen in one of the photographs. (Frazier Dep. at 58:18–59:13, Exhibit 2.) During his
3 deposition, Defendant indicated that when the Reservoir water reached the water line mark, “the
4 slide would be over the water.” (Frazier Dep. at 60:5–13.) Defendant further indicated that the
5 waterslide pumped water from the Reservoir. (Id. at 51:3–11.) Taken all together, the Court finds
6 that an ordinary person considering this evidence would be able to determine that the waterslide was
7 within the Project Boundary, as parts of the waterslide exist within the five-feet of airspace above
8 the Reservoir’s high water mark, thus bringing the waterslide within the Project Boundary. Indeed,
9 Defendant was able to so reason at his deposition. (Id. at 50:21–51:2 (“[S]o part of the tubing there
10 that we’re calling a waterslide crosses over the top of the reservoir, which must mean that there is,
11 to some people’s interpretation, it goes over a 515 mark of some sort.”)).
12 Based on the evidence adduced, the Court finds that it is undisputed that the Contested
13 Facilities are within the Project Boundary.
14 b. The SMP’s Grandfather Clause
15 Citing to a footnote in the 2015 SMP, Defendant claims that the SMP grandfathers all
16 facilities built before February 16, 2006, which would include all of the Contested Facilities. (Doc.
17 46 at 8.) Plaintiff responds that the SMP language relied upon by Defendant is not so broad. (Doc.
18 52 at 4.) Footnote 2 of the SMP states:
19 The 2002 SMP and this revised SMP recognize that there are existing, legally
installed facilities within the FERC Project Boundary that do not require the
20 Commission’s approval, assuming the facilities were legally installed and installation
was completed by February 16, 2006. These facilities are considered
21 ‘grandfathered.’ However, any modifications to these facilities are subject to the
provisions of the SMP in effect at that time.
22
23 (SMP at 1-1 n.2.)
24 The plain language of the SMP does not support Defendant’s expansive reading. What is
25 considered grandfathered is limited by the phrase “assuming the facilities were legally installed.”
26 (Id.) Defendant has adduced no evidence that the Contested Facilities were “legally installed”
27 within the meaning of this provision and thus grandfathered under the provision. It is undisputed
28 that Defendant has never applied for a permit for any of the Contested Facilities (PSUF 6, 7, 8; Doc.
1 40, Exhibits E&F, Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) and Responses, Nos. 4, 7, 10), and Plaintiff
2 has never issued permits for the Contested Facilities to anyone (Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 14; Doc. 50-
3 3, Declaration of Susan Larson (“Larson Decl.”) at ¶ 5). Indeed, the crux of the instant lawsuit is
4 whether the Contested Facilities have been legally installed, specifically, whether they are subject
5 to Plaintiff’s permitting requirements.
6 In sum, the Court finds that the SMP does not grandfather all facilities installed prior to
7 February 16, 2006, and Defendant has not otherwise demonstrated the applicability of the SMP
8 grandfather provision to the Contested Facilities. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to summary
9 judgment on the basis that the Contested Facilities are grandfathered by the SMP.
10 c. Defendant’s Liability as a Possessor of Land
11 Defendant contends he is entitled to partial summary judgment on the nuisance per se claim
12 because he did not personally build, move, or maintain any of the contested facilities. (Doc. 45 at
13 11; Doc. 46 at 17–18.) But as Defendant concedes, “possessors of land can be liable for a nuisance
14 on the land even when they did not create the nuisance.” (Doc. 46 at 18.) “The law reasonably
15 imposes a duty on a possessor of land—where the possessor has control—do not produce a
16 nuisance.” Redevelopment Agency of City of Stockton v. BNSF Ry. Co., 643 F.3d 668, 676 (9th Cir.
17 2011) (citing Leslie Salt Co. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation etc. Com., 153 Cal. App. 3d 605,
18 620–22 (1984)); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 838 (1979)). (See Doc. 46 at 18.) Accordingly,
19 the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on this basis.
20 d. Constitutionality of the Ordinance as Applied
21 Defendant moves for partial summary judgment on the grounds that the Ordinance would be
22 unconstitutional if applied retroactively to the Contested Facilities. (Doc. 45 at 11.) As a threshold
23 matter, Defendant first contends that the Ordinance should not be construed to apply retroactively.
24 (Id. at 12.) Should the Court find retroactivity, however, Defendant asserts that retroactive
25 application of the Ordinance to the Contested Facilities would be unconstitutional because
26 Defendant has vested rights to the Contested Facilities. (Id. at 12–14.) Plaintiff counters that the
27 language of the Ordinance manifests the legislative body’s intent for retroactive application. (Doc.
28 50 at 16.) Plaintiff further asserts Defendant does not have vested rights to the Contested Facilities.
1 (Id. at 16–17.)
2 The Court first considers whether the Ordinance should be construed to apply retroactively.
3 Statutes do not operate retroactively unless the legislative body enacting the measure clearly
4 indicates its intent that they do so. Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 4th 232, 243
5 (1997); Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. 3d 1188, 1208–09 (1988). A legislative body’s
6 intent with regard to prospective or retroactive application may be determined either from the
7 language in the statute itself or, if the extrinsic sources are sufficiently clear, legislative history.
8 Western Security Bank, 15 Cal. 4th at 243; Evangelatos, 44 Cal. 3d at 1209–10. The general
9 presumption against retroactive application of statutes is subordinate to “the transcendent canon of
10 statutory construction that the design of the Legislature be given effect.” In re Marriage of Bouquet,
11 16 Cal. 3d 583, 587 (1976).
12 The Ordinance provides: “Any dock or other facility installed prior to 1979 shall be
13 considered ‘grandfathered’ into legal existence. Any expansion, reconstruction or other alteration
14 shall be subject to full compliance with current regulations.” Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code §
15 20.10.120. By its plain terms, the Ordinance exempts all facilities installed prior to 1979, unless
16 they are subsequently expanded, reconstructed, or otherwise altered. As Plaintiff contends, (Doc.
17 50 at 16), the 1979 cut-off date signals the Board’s intention that the Ordinance apply to all facilities
18 installed after that year. If the Board did not want the Ordinance to apply retroactively, then it
19 simply could have set the cut-off as 2008, the year the Ordinance was enacted. Furthermore, the
20 Ordinance’s stated purpose “is to provide consistent policies for the regulation, operation and
21 enforcement activities at Tulloch Reservoir. The goal is to ensure that the quality of Tulloch
22 Reservoir as a resource for homeowners, public, recreation, fisheries, power generation and drinking
23 supply is maintained.” Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.110. Retroactive application of
24 the Ordinance advances the purpose of maintaining the Reservoir, as it brings more facilities within
25 the ambit of Plaintiff’s permitting process and authority, which are designed in part to “[p]rotect
26 and enhance the scenic, environmental, and public recreational value of the reservoir.” (SMP at 1-
27 6.) The Court, therefore, finds that the Ordinance applies retroactively.
28 When a legislative body clearly intends a statute or ordinance to operate retroactively, that
1 intent must be enforced unless retroactivity is barred by constitutional constraints. Western Security
2 Bank, 15 Cal. 4th at 243–44. “Retrospective application may be unconstitutional, however, if it
3 deprives a person of a vested right without due process of law.” Davidson v. Cnty. of San Diego,
4 49 Cal. App. 4th 639, 646 (1996). “The doctrine of vested rights is ordinarily applied when a local
5 agency attempts to prevent the completion or use of a project on the grounds that the project, while
6 lawful at the time a permit was issued, had been rendered unlawful by an intervening change in the
7 law.” Attard v. Bd. of Supervisors of Contra Costa Cnty., 14 Cal. App. 5th 1066, 1076 (2017). “It
8 has long been the rule in this state and in other jurisdictions that if a property owner has performed
9 substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by
10 the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of
11 the permit. Once a landowner has secured a vested right the government may not, by virtue of a
12 change in the zoning laws, prohibit construction authorized by the permit upon which he relied.”
13 Avco Cmty. Devs., Inc. v. S. Coast Reg’l Com., 17 Cal. 3d 785, 791–99 (1976) (citations omitted).
14 Defendant cursorily asserts he has vested rights to the Contested Facilities, indicating in a
15 footnote that “vested” means his property rights “are not subject to a condition precedent.” (Doc.
16 45 at 13 (quoting In re Marriage of Buol, 39 Cal. 3d 751, 757 n.6 (1985)).) Plaintiff contends that
17 Defendant does not have vested rights to the Contested Facilities, as Defendant has never obtained
18 permits for the Contested Facilities, and because the Property is burdened by Plaintiff’s Flowage
19 Easement, granted in 1957—long before any of the Contested facilities were built. (Doc. 50 at 16–
20 17.) Even assuming the existence of vested rights, Plaintiff claims that those rights may be impaired
21 if they pose a public nuisance or threat to health and safety. (Doc. 52 at 8–9.)
22 “[T]he vested rights theory is predicated upon estoppel of the governing body.” Anderson
23 v. City Council of City of Pleasant Hill, 229 Cal. App. 2d 79, 89 (1964). “This is a principle of
24 equitable estoppel which may be applied against the government where justice and fairness require
25 it.” Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Bd., 35 Cal. 3d 858, 866–67 (1984), disapproved on
26 other grounds in City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, 52 Cal. 3d 1184, 1192 (1991). “An
27 equitable estoppel requiring the government to exempt a land use from a subsequently imposed
28 regulation must include (1) a promise such as that implied by a building permit that the proposed
1 use will not be prohibited by a class of restrictions that includes the regulation in question, and (2)
2 reasonable reliance on the promise by the promisee to the promisee’s detriment.” Id. at 867. No
3 vested right exists “unless and until both of those elements against the government are established.”
4 Id.
5 The Court finds that Defendant has no vested rights because he has failed to demonstrate
6 that Calaveras County (“the County”) made a representation to him that the Contested Facilities
7 were permissible. According to Defendant’s deposition testimony, he spoke with the County about
8 whether any of the Contested Facilities had been permitted by Plaintiff or the County, and he “was
9 given no conclusive answer.” (Frazier Dep. at 31:1–24.) The County also told Defendant that it
10 “had never been in the business of permitting docks” and to “call [Plaintiff] about docks, it’s not
11 their business.” (Id. at 31:24–32:4.) This evidence indicates that the County was in no position to
12 make a promise regarding the permissibility of the Contested Facilities, much less one on which
13 Defendant could reasonably rely.
14 To the extent Defendant is claiming he has vested rights to the Contested Facilities simply
15 because they were in existence prior to the enactment (see Doc. 45 at 12), that contention is
16 unavailing. As noted above, it is undisputed that Defendant has never applied for a permit for any
17 of the Contested Facilities (PSUF 6, 7, 8; RFAs and Responses, Nos. 4, 7, 10), and Plaintiff has
18 never issued permits for the Contested Facilities to anyone (Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 14; Larson Decl.
19 at ¶ 5). “Courts have yet to extend the vested rights or estoppel theory to instances where a developer
20 lacks a building permit or the functional equivalent, regardless of the property owner’s detrimental
21 reliance on local government actions and regardless of how many other land use and other
22 preliminary approvals have been granted . . . . California courts apply this rule most strictly[.]”
23 Hermosa Beach Stop Oil Coal. v. City of Hermosa Beach, 86 Cal. App. 4th 534, 553 (2001) (quoting
24 Toigo v. Town of Ross, 70 Cal. App. 4th 309, 322 (1998)).
25 Even assuming Defendant had vested rights in the Contested Facilities, it is settled that
26 “[v]ested rights are not immutable; the state, exercising its police power, may impair such rights
27 when considered reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, morals and general welfare of
28 the people.” In re Marriage of Buol, 39 Cal. 3d 751, 760–61 (1985). “The constitutional question,
1 on principle, therefore, would seem to be, not whether a vested right is impaired [by a change in the
2 law], but whether such a change reasonably could be believed to be sufficiently necessary to the
3 public welfare as to justify the impairment.” In re Marriage of Bouquet, 16 Cal. 3d at 592 (citations
4 and internal quotation marks omitted).
5 “The vested rights doctrine in the land use context is subject . . . to the qualification that such
6 a vested right, while immune from divestment through ordinary police power regulations, may be
7 impaired or revoked if the use authorized or conducted thereunder constitutes a menace to the public
8 health and safety or a public nuisance. Public welfare demands may even require the complete
9 destruction of vested property rights.” Davidson, 49 Cal. App. 4th at 649 (citations and internal
10 quotation marks omitted; italics removed). Determining whether a particular retroactive provision
11 violates due process by impairing a vested right requires weighing several factors: “‘the significance
12 of the state interest served by the law, the importance of the retroactive application of the law to the
13 effectuation of that interest, the extent of reliance upon the former law, the legitimacy of that
14 reliance, the extent of actions taken on the basis of that reliance, and the extent to which the
15 retroactive application of the new law would disrupt those actions.’” In re Marriage of Buol, 39
16 Cal. 3d at 761 (quoting In re Marriage of Bouquet, 16 Cal. 3d at 592). “Probably the single most
17 important factor to be considered in determining whether a particular impairment is constitutionally
18 permissible is the nature and extent of the impairment. The severity of the impairment measures
19 the height of the hurdle the state legislation must clear.” Donlan v. Weaver, 118 Cal. App. 3d 675,
20 682 (1981) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
21 Weighing the relevant factors, the Court finds that retroactive application of the Ordinance
22 was sufficiently necessary to the public welfare. As discussed above, the purpose of the Ordinance
23 is “to provide consistent policies for the regulation, operation and enforcement activities at Tulloch
24 Reservoir,” with the goal to “ensure that the quality of Tulloch Reservoir as a resource for
25 homeowners, public, recreation, fisheries, power generation and drinking supply is maintained.”
26 Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.110. The deeming of certain unpermitted facilities to
27 be public nuisances indicates that the Board’s interest in enacting the Ordinance was to advance
28 public safety and welfare. Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.120. Furthermore, the nature
1 of the impairment to any alleged vested right is not severe. The Ordinance does not necessarily
2 require the removal of any unpermitted facility that is not grandfathered. The Ordinance instead
3 provides that “[a]ll facilities installed, constructed or maintained within the reservoir and FERC
4 project boundary shall be in full compliance with appropriate permitting regulations of the county
5 and Plaintiff.” Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.110 (emphasis added). Thus, any
6 compliance issues based on facilities that are merely unpermitted could presumably be remedied by
7 obtaining permits from Plaintiff and the County. If this is “a pure paperwork issue,” as Defendant
8 claims (see Doc. 45 at 14), any impairment to Defendant’s rights would be minimal, as all he would
9 have to do is obtain the proper permits to comply with the Ordinance.
10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to summary
11 judgment on the nuisance per se claim on the grounds that the Ordinance would be unconstitutional
12 as applied. Having determined that the Ordinance applies retroactively, meaning that “[a]ny dock,
13 building or structure set up, erected, built, moved or maintained” without a permit after 1979
14 “constitutes a public nuisance,” Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.120, the Court next
15 addresses whether the dock, personal watercraft ports, and waterslide are nuisances per se.
16 e. The Dock
17 The parties dispute when the dock at issue was constructed and whether it is grandfathered
18 under the Ordinance. (Doc. 46 at 7; Doc. 52 at 3–4.) Defendant claims that the dock was built in
19 1971, asserting that “county records show that there was a reinforced-concrete slip dock built at the
20 Property in 1971, and appraised in 1973 and 1978.” (Doc. 45 at 9; Frazier Decl., Exhibit 2.) Plaintiff
21 claims that the dock was built in approximately 1992 and improved in 2008. (Doc. 50-7 at 3.)
22 Plaintiff further contends that the dock referenced in the county records is not the dock currently at
23 issue: “those records at issue show that a dock was present in 1971.” (Doc. 52 at 3 (emphasis in
24 original).) According to Plaintiff, photographs from its records from 1978 show that the only dock
25 present on the Property at the time was a reinforced concrete boat slip underneath the house. (Doc.
26 52 at 3; Zimmerman Decl., Exhibit D.) In fact, the records 1971 county records include a notation
27 next to the entry for “Boat Slip” that reads “(H. Re-enforced Conc”). (Doc. 52 at 3; Frazier Decl.,
28 Exhibit 2.) Furthermore, Marks, the live-in caretaker for the Property from 2000 through 2016,
1 declared that no portion of the slip docks visible in the recent photographs was installed prior to
2 1991 when he first became familiar with the Property, and the portion that he helped build was not
3 installed until 2008. (Marks Decl. ¶ 5.) Based on the parties’ proffered evidence, the Court finds
4 that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to when the dock was constructed and thus whether
5 it is grandfathered.
6 Plaintiff makes the alternative contention that Defendant violated the Ordinance because the
7 dock was maintained without a permit. (Doc. 39 at 15–16.) Plaintiff has adduced evidence that two
8 additional docks extending into the lake were added at the Property and connected to the existing
9 dock as part of a settlement between Defendant and another property owner. (Frazier Dep. at 60:19–
10 61:11.) Defendant does not rebut this evidence, instead claiming that “those docks were only tied
11 up temporarily until he sold them,” and the docks were not subject to the Ordinance because “they
12 were not permanent structures” and thus not “installed, constructed, or maintained.” (Doc. 51 at
13 10.)
14 With regard to grandfathered facilities, the Ordinance provides: “Any expansion,
15 reconstruction or other alteration shall be subject to full compliance with current regulations.”
16 Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.120. “Facility expansion” is defined as “the
17 modification of an existing facility that results in an increase of its reservoir extension, increased
18 decking square footage, increased dock size, an increase in the number of boats it can accommodate,
19 or increases or decreases water storage quantities.” Id. at § 20.10.100.
20 Assuming the dock was grandfathered, the Court finds that the addition of the two
21 “temporary” docks to the existing dock constituted an expansion that was subject to permitting
22 requirements. The Ordinance does not appear to distinguish between temporary and permanent
23 alterations. In fact, “facility expansion” is broadly defined to include any “modification of an
24 existing facility that results in an increase of its reservoir extension, increased decking square
25 footage, increased dock size, [or] an increase in the number of boats it can accommodate[.]”
26 Whether temporary or permanent, the addition of two docks to the existing dock increased the
27 combined facility’s extension, square footage, and size, thus bringing the docks within the meaning
28
1 a “facility expansion.”7 Accordingly, as no permit was obtained for the expansion of the existing
2 dock, as required by the Ordinance, the Court finds that the dock is a nuisance per se.
3 f. The Personal Watercraft Ports and Waterslide
4 Plaintiff has adduced evidence that the personal watercraft ports were installed in the mid-
5 1990s and the waterslide was installed in 2004. (Marks Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 8.) Defendant has not
6 presented any evidence rebutting these dates of installation, nor does he contend that these facilities
7 were constructed prior to 1979 and thus grandfathered under the Ordinance. Again, the evidence is
8 undisputed that neither Defendant nor previous owners of the Property sought permits for these
9 facilities, and Plaintiff has never issued permits for these facilities. (PSUF 6, 7, 8; RFAs and
10 Responses, Nos. 4, 7, 10; Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 14; Larson Decl. at ¶ 5; Marks Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 6.)
11 The Ordinance provides that “[a]ll facilities installed, constructed or maintained within the reservoir
12 and FERC project boundary shall be in full compliance with appropriate permitting regulations of
13 the county and [Plaintiff].” Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.100. As the Court has
14 determined that the Ordinance applies retroactively, and the personal watercraft ports and waterslide
15 were installed within the Project Boundary after 1979, the relevant owner of the Property was
16 required to obtain permits for those facilities when the Ordinance was enacted in 2008. Because the
17 personal watercraft ports and waterslide are still unpermitted, the Court finds that they each
18 constitute a separate nuisance per se.8
19 F. Fourth Cause of Action for Trespass
20 Defendant moves for partial summary judgment, or, alternatively, judgment on the
21 pleadings, on Plaintiff’s claim for trespass. (Doc. 45 at 17.) “Trespass is an invasion of the
22 plaintiff’s interest in the exclusive possession of land.” McBride v. Smith, 18 Cal. App. 5th 1160,
23 1173 (2018). “‘The essence of the cause of action for trespass is an “unauthorized entry” onto the
24 land of another.’ [Citation.]” Miller v. National Broadcasting Co., 187 Cal. App. 3d 1463, 1480
25 (1986). To state a cause of action for trespass, a plaintiff must allege an unauthorized and tangible
26

27 7 Adopting Defendant’s construction of the Ordinance would permit landowners to install “temporary” facilities
indefinitely and evade permitting requirements. Such an interpretation is in clear conflict with the Ordinance’s stated
28 purpose and goal.
1 entry on the land of another, which interfered with the plaintiff’s exclusive possessory rights.
2 McBride, 18 Cal. App. 5th at 1174. Defendant contends that the trespass claim fails as a matter of
3 law because he is the owner of the Property; thus, the two elements of exclusive possession and
4 unauthorized entry cannot be satisfied: (Doc. 45 at 17.) Plaintiff does not dispute this, citing to
5 McBride and stating in a footnote: “It appears the trespass claim is subject to dismissal.” (Doc. 50
6 at 10 n.3). Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s fourth
7 claim for trespass will be granted.
8 G. Fifth Cause of Action for Interference with Express Easement
9 Defendant moves for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for interference with
10 express easement, asserting only that, “[f]or the same reasons that the [Contested Facilities] are not
11 a nuisance, they do not interfere with any property rights Plaintiff may possess.” (Doc. 45 at 10.)
12 An easement is an interest in the land of another that gives the easement holder the right to use the
13 land of the other person and/or restricts the use by the fee owner of her own land. Moylan v. Dykes,
14 181 Cal. App. 3d 561, 568 (1986).
15 [T]he servient owner may use his property in any manner not inconsistent with the
easement so long as it does not unreasonably impede the dominant tenant in his
16 rights. Actions that make it more difficult to use an easement, that interfere with the
ability to maintain and repair improvements built for its enjoyment, or that increase
17 the risks attendant on exercise of rights created by the easement are prohibited . . .
unless justified by needs of the servient estate. In determining whether the holder of
18 the servient estate has unreasonably interfered with exercise of an easement, the
interests of the parties must be balanced to strike a reasonable accommodation that
19 maximizes overall utility to the extent consistent with effectuating the purpose of the
easement . . . and subject to any different conclusion based on the intent or
20 expectations of the parties[.]
21 Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal. App. 4th 419, 429–30 (2013) (citations and internal quotations marks
22 omitted; italics removed).
23 As discussed above, Defendant contends that the Contested Facilities are consistent with
24 Plaintiff’s goals for the Reservoir such there can be no interference with Plaintiff’s property
25 interests. (Doc. 45 at 14–16). Plaintiff, however, has adduced evidence that would support a finding
26 of interference with the Flowage Easement. (Doc. 41, Exhibits A & B; Frazier Dep. 51:3–11; see
27 supra Section IV.D.) The Court, therefore, finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists, and
28 Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fifth claim for interference with
1 express easement will be denied.
2 H. Defense of Laches
3 Defendant moves for summary judgment on his affirmative defense of laches. (Doc. 45 at
4 9–10.) Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that laches cannot bar a public nuisance claim,
5 and in any event, there are triable issues of fact as to whether laches applies. (Doc. 50 at 11–14.)
6 “Laches is an equitable, affirmative defense which requires a showing of both an unreasonable delay
7 by the plaintiff in bringing suit, plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains
8 or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” Highland Springs Conf. & Training Ctr. v.
9 City of Banning, 244 Cal. App. 4th 267, 282 (2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
10 The Court finds that summary judgment on the defense of laches is not appropriate. First,
11 as Plaintiff contends, laches cannot bar a public nuisance claim. Civil Code § 3490 expressly
12 provides that “[n]o lapse of time can legalize a public nuisance, amounting to an actual obstruction
13 of public right.” Here, Plaintiff has established that the Contested Facilities obstruct the public use
14 and enjoyment of the Reservoir and pose a threat to public safety. The Ordinance makes all facilities
15 set up, erected, built, moved, or maintained without a permit a public nuisance, which the Court has
16 determined includes the Contested Facilities. Calaveras County, Cal., Mun. Code § 20.10.120.
17 Furthermore, Plaintiff has received “multiple complaints and inquiries over the years about the
18 number, size, and location of dock facilities and whether the waterslide was legal.” (Larson Decl.
19 at ¶ 6.) Zimmerman, the general manager for Plaintiff, stated in his declaration:
20 [W]hile it may seem as though one facility improperly placed, or not in compliance
with SMP regulations, might not have operational consequences, the incremental
21 impact of each non-conforming facility leads to a cumulative impact as there are
hundreds of docks and other facilities at Tulloch Reservoir. Improperly placed
22 facilities create the very real potential for profoundly negative impacts on reservoir
operations, navigability, and safety of the public.
23
24 (Zimmerman Decl. at ¶ 16.) Therefore, the Court finds that laches is not a bar to the public nuisance
25 claim as a matter of law.9 See City of Turlock v. Bristow, 103 Cal. App. 750, 756 (1930) (“Neither
26

27 9 The Court notes that “under certain particular circumstances it has been held that laches may prohibit a public nuisance
abatement cause of action where, after a ‘weighing process,’ the court has determined that the ‘injustice to be avoided
28 was sufficient to counterbalance the effect of the defense upon a public interest.’” Kahn v. Price, 69 Cal. App. 5th 223,
1 prescriptive rights, laches, nor the statute of limitations is a defense against the maintenance of a
2 public nuisance.”); Wade v. Campbell, 200 Cal. App. 2d 54, 61 (1962) (case involving a suit between
3 private parties where the court held, “We are of the opinion that the better rule is that the defense of
4 laches and the bar of the statute of limitations are inapplicable [to public nuisances].”); Est. of
5 Goldberg by & through Rubin v. Goss-Jewett Co., Inc., 738 F. App’x 897, 901 (9th Cir. 2018) (case
6 involving a suit between private parties where the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in
7 dismissing the public nuisance claim as barred by laches). Cf. Zack’s, Inc. v. City of Sausalito, 165
8 Cal. App. 4th 1163, 1191 (2008) (case involving a private citizen against the City of Sausalito where
9 the court found that “[b]ecause the nuisance . . . allege[d] fits the statutory definition of a public
10 nuisance, it cannot be time-barred.”) (internal citation omitted).
11 The Court also concludes that there exists a genuine dispute of material fact related to the
12 application of laches as to the remaining claims. With regard to the element of prejudice, Defendant
13 contends that “Plaintiff knew that [Defendant] was going to buy Spica in 2011, and that he was
14 depending on the [Contested Facilities as] amenities.” (Doc. 45 at 10; Frazier Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff,
15 however, denies any such knowledge. (Doc. 50 at 13–14.) Larson, the FERC license coordinator
16 for Plaintiff, stated that she did not recall being advised prior to 2011 that Defendant was purchasing,
17 or had any interest in purchasing the Property or Spica Holdings LLC. (Larson Decl. at ¶ 2.) Larson
18 also stated that she “never would have told [Defendant] that any waterfront facilities at the
19 [Property] were ‘grandfathered’ in or exempt from the [SMP]. In fact, [Defendant] was informed
20 of the exact opposite each and every time such facilities were discussed.” (Larson Decl. at ¶ 5.)
21 Likewise, Steve Felte, the former general manager for Plaintiff, stated he did not recall ever
22 discussing the Property with Defendant, and he “would not have offered advise [sic] on how to
23 avoid or circumvent the building or use of any improvements or facilities that would encroach or
24 use Tulloch Reservoir not in compliance with the [SMP]” in meetings about other properties with
25 Defendant. (Doc. 50-4, Declaration of Steve Felte (“Felte Decl.”) at 4.)
26 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the defense of laches will be
27
is not applicable here, as any potential injustice to Defendant, i.e., requiring him to obtain permits for his facilities, is
28 minimal and thus insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the safety and use of public waters.
1 denied, and Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on its third claim for public nuisance
2 will be granted.
3 I. Request for Injunctive Relief
4 Plaintiff requests a permanent injunction to abate the nuisance caused by the Contested
5 Facilities. (Compl. at 12; Doc. 39 at 21.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a
6 permanent injunction: (1) prohibiting Defendant from installing, possessing, or maintaining
7 property within the Project Boundary without seeking prior approval and obtaining a permit from
8 Plaintiff; (2) prohibiting Defendant from installing, possessing, or maintaining property within the
9 Project Boundary that is not in compliance with a permit obtained from Plaintiff; (3) requiring
10 Defendant within ten days of the permanent injunction to submit plans to Plaintiff for removal of
11 his property that was installed without prior approval from Plaintiff; (4) providing for the abatement
12 of the public and private nuisance that Defendant’s continuing violation of the Ordinance represents;
13 (5) enjoining Defendant from unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff’s Flowage Easement; and (6)
14 enjoining Defendant from continuing to trespass on Plaintiff’s Flowage Easement. (Compl. at 12;
15 Doc. 39 at 21–22.)
16 As an initial matter, the Court observes that items (5) and (6) cannot be granted. With regard
17 to item (5), Plaintiff has not moved for summary judgment on its claim for interference with express
18 easement, so no relief for that claim can be granted at this stage. As for item (6), Plaintiff does not
19 dispute that its trespass claim fails as a matter of law, so Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for that
20 claim. The Court now turns to the request for injunctive relief to abate public nuisances.
21 Normally, a party seeking injunctive relief in federal court must to show “(1) that it has
22 suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are
23 inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the
24 plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not
25 be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391
26 (2006). However, “[a] legislatively declared public nuisance constitutes a nuisance per se against
27 which an injunction may issue without allegation or proof of irreparable injury.” Virtual Media
28 Group, Inc. v. City of San Mateo, 2002 WL 485044, *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2002), aff’d by 66 Fed.
1 App’x. 129 (9th Cir. 2003). “According to California law, all that a plaintiff alleging a nuisance per
2 se must prove for an injunction to issue is that the property at issue was in violation of the statute or
3 ordinance declaring the activity or condition to be a nuisance.” Yick, 2016 WL 4061348, at *4
4 (citing City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba, 215 Cal. App .4th 1068, 1087–88 (2013)).
5 In Yick, after determining that the defendant’s unpermitted dock constituted a public
6 nuisance per se under the Ordinance, the Court “applie[d] California substantive law regarding
7 issuance of abatement injunctions upon proof of nuisance per se,” and found that “[b]ecause
8 [Plaintiff] has proven that [the defendant’s] dock violates [the Ordinance], and there is no challenge
9 to the constitutionality of [the Ordinance], an abatement injunction will issue.” Yick, 2016 WL
10 4061348, at *4. Here, as in Yick, because the Court has determined that the Ordinance is
11 constitutional as applied to the Contested Facilities and that those facilities violate the Ordinance,
12 an abate injunction will issue.
13 The injunction to be issued, however, will not include the precise terms requested by
14 Plaintiff. In crafting the scope of the abatement injunction in Yick, the Court was “careful to
15 minimize the hardship on [the defendant]” and observed that “[a]batement of the nuisance can be
16 achieved by [the defendant] obtaining a permit for placement of his dock.” Yick, 2016 WL 4061348,
17 at *4. The Court issued the following injunction: “[The defendant] may maintain his dock on the
18 Tulloch Reservoir only if [Plaintiff] approves a permit application [submitted within 21 days of the
19 date of the order]. Otherwise, [the defendant’s] dock must be removed no later than the later of (1)
20 15 days after the date of denial of his permit application, or (2) if no application is submitted within
21 21 days, 30 days after issuance of this order.” Id.
22 The Court finds that the abatement injunction in Yick reasonably balances the hardships
23 between the parties and will issue a similar one here: Within 30 days of this order, Defendant shall
24 apply for encroachment permits from Plaintiff for each of the Contested Facilities. Each of the
25 Contested Facilities may be maintained on the Tulloch Reservoir only if Plaintiff approves the
26 relevant permit application. Otherwise, the Contested Facilities must be removed by no later than
27 the later of: (1) 15 days after the date of denial of Defendant’s permit application(s), or (2) if no
28 application(s) are submitted within 21 days, 30 days after issuance of this order.
1 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
3 1. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on its second and third causes of
4 action for public nuisance and private nuisance, respectively (Doc. 38), is
5 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
6 (a) Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on its second cause of action
7 for public nuisance is GRANTED;
8 (b) Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on its third cause of action
9 for private nuisance is DENIED;
10 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or alternatively partial summary
11 judgment or judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 45), is GRANTED IN PART and
12 DENIED IN PART as follows:
13 (a) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s first cause
14 of action for violation of the FPA, FERC regulations, and the SMP is
15 GRANTED;
16 (b) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s second
17 cause of action for public nuisance is DENIED;
18 (c) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s third cause
19 of action for private nuisance is DENIED;
20 (d) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s fourth cause
21 of action for trespass is GRANTED; and
22 (e) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s fifth cause
23 of action for interference with express easement is DENIED; and
24 3. Plaintiff’s request for an abatement injunction is GRANTED as follows: Within
25 thirty (30) days of this order, Defendant shall apply for encroachment permits from
26 Plaintiff for each of the Contested Facilities. Each of the Contested Facilities may
27 be maintained on the Tulloch Reservoir only if Plaintiff approves the relevant permit
28 application. Otherwise, the Contested Facilities must be removed by no later than
1 the later of: (1) 15 days after the date of denial of Defendant’s permit application(s),
2 or (2) if no application(s) are submitted within 21 days, 30 days after issuance of this
3 order.
4 In light of the relief granted, it is unclear to the Court how the parties intend to proceed. By
5 no later than February 2, 2022, the parties shall file either a notice of settlement, stipulation for
6 dismissal of the action or any remaining claims, or a joint pretrial statement, should they wish to
7 proceed with the matter. The Pre-Trial Conference, currently set for January 26, 2022, is
8 CONTINUED to February 9, 2022, at 2:30 p.m.10
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10

11 Dated: January 18, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10032913. Public record. Not legal advice.