CITY OF PALMDALE v. PALMDALE WATER DISTRICT (2011)

Court of Appeal, Second District, California.

CITY OF PALMDALE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PALMDALE WATER DISTRICT, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B224869

Decided: August 09, 2011

Wm. Matthew Ditzhazy, City Attorney, City of Palmdale; Richards, Watson & Gershon, Gregory M. Kunert and Whitney G. McDonald for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lagerlof, Senecal, Gosney & Kruse, Timothy J. Gosney, James D. Ciampa and Francis J. Santo for Defendants and Respondents. Daniel S. Hentschke for Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent Palmdale Water District.

We concur:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

CITY OF PALMDALE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

PALMDALE WATER DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

B224869

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC413907)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION;

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 9, 2011, and not certified for publication, be modified as follows:

1. The opinion was not certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now appears that the opinion should be

2. On page 10, in the first full paragraph, there is a reference to “Proposition 18.” It should read “Proposition 218.”

The foregoing does not change the judgment.

WOODS, J.

PERLUSS, P.J. ZELON, J.PERLUSS, P.J. WOODS, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network