Wesley I did the work for you. Here's a link to the case report. Hopefully it takes you to what you are looking for. http://openaccess.sb-court.org/OpenA...etype=CIV&dsn=
Thanks I was given the info from another shareholder right after my comment. There are helpful people here after all! Thanks for taking the time though. I'm sure someone just like me will find the link very useful. Yes I'm sure glen is very busy with his 20 hour work week, j/k haha. Honestly I've lost interest mostly due to rude comments such as yours. I will leave it up to cppmwc to sue me in civil court for my legal assessment fee. If they plan on shutting off my water because of this, all the better. Bring a sheriff cause that's the only way you will step foot on my property. Best wishes CPP!
Last edited by CPPMWTFC; 08-07-2013 at 04:06 AM. Reason: 08.03.2013 Video: Part One
Last edited by CPPMWTFC; 08-07-2013 at 04:10 AM. Reason: 08.03.2013 Video: Part Two
New Legal Requirements for California Mutual Water Companies
Effective January 1, 2012, California law imposes new requirements on mutual water companies that own and operate a public water system. Adopted as Assembly Bill 54 (Solorio), and codified at several places in the California Corporations, Government, and Health and Safety Codes, the new requirements are intended to improve the quality of water served by domestic mutual water companies throughout the state. Assemblyman Solorio introduced the bill in response to failure of technical, managerial and financial capacity at the Diamond Park Mutual Water Company in Santa Ana, although that company is in the process of being dissolved after connection to the City of Santa Ana water system.
The new statute departs from existing law in several ways. First, it includes a legislative declaration that “[r]egardless of the form of the organization that operates a public water system, these organizations provide a public service that remains one of the core duties of the people’s government.” Defining the business of a mutual water company as a “public service” is directly counter to a long history of court decisions that recognize the private nature of mutual water companies. It is that purely private nature that allows mutual water companies to remain exempt from regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The legislative declaration that mutual water companies may be providing a public service is legally questionable, as well as unnecessary for improved oversight of public water systems that happen to be mutual water companies. While Assemblyman Solorio and the Legislature may not have intended to interfere with historical legal doctrines regarding mutual water companies, it is not hard to see some mischief growing out of that declaration in future.
Second, by declaring the distribution of water to be “a public service that remains one of the core duties of the people’s government,” the Legislature has made a bold statement on a question that is widely debated among legal and policy experts. While the 20th Century saw substantial growth in the provision of water services by local governments in California, the same is not true globally or historically, where water service is frequently (and successfully) provided by the private sector subject to public regulation. While there are some civil society activists who argue that water service should be provided exclusively by the government, by no means is that a universal opinion, and the California Legislature’s declaration that water service is a core duty of government appears either ill informed or out of place in a statute that addresses only the relatively tangential matter of mutual water company operations.
Third, AB 54 subjects mutual water companies to a broad range of regulation by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in each county. Traditionally, LAFCOs have provided limited oversight of local government entities that provide water service, while the CPUC has comprehensively regulated the operations of investor-owned utilities. Mutual water companies have not been regulated by either of those agencies, although they have been subject to regulation by the California Department of Public Health if they operate a public water system, the California Department of Real Estate if they are formed to serve a residential subdivision, and the California State Water Resources Control Board related to water rights.
New Corporations Code § 14301.1 requires that each mutual water company submit to the LAFCO for its county a map showing its service area by December 31, 2012. In addition, a mutual must respond to a request for non-confidential information from a LAFCO in conjunction with that agency’s preparation of a municipal service review or sphere of influence. The statute does not require the mutual to undertake a new study or investigation, but merely turn over information already generated. It also does not require a mutual to disclose information about shareholders, such as their names, addresses or water usage.
New Government Code § 56375(r) grants authority to a LAFCO to approve the annexation of a mutual water company’s service area to a city or special district. This provision does not insulate a city or district from having to pay just compensation for any mutual water company property taken by eminent domain, including, apparently, any compensation due under the Service Duplication Law (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 1501 et seq.).
New Government Code § 56430(c) and (d) allows a LAFCO conducting a municipal service review to investigate whether a mutual water company that operates a public water system is in compliance with the federal and state Safe Drinking Water Acts. This new power overlaps with the existing jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health over public water systems.
Under the new law, Corporations Code § 14300(b) defines a mutual water company as the type of corporation described in § 14300(a), i.e., a “corporation organized for or engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water … only to owners of its shares.” Previously, the California statutes did not include a definition of the term ”mutual water company,” although there was a common understanding of what constituted such a company. This is a minor, and possibly helpful, clarification.
New Corporations Code § 14301.3(a) requires that all improvements to a public water system owned by a mutual water company be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Waterworks standards found in Chapter 16 of Title 22, California Code of Regulations. New Corporations Code § 14301.3(b) requires that a mutual water company maintain financial reserves at a level sufficient to repair and replace its facilities in compliance with the federal and state Safe Drinking Water Acts (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq.; Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 116270 et seq.). These are helpful changes in the law and directly support the provision of high quality water supplies without challenging the nature of mutual water companies.
Lastly, new Health and Safety Code § 116755 requires that each board member of a mutual water company complete a two-hour training course within six months of joining the board, or by December 31, 2012 if already serving on the board as of the effective date of AB 54. The course must cover the duties of board members, including: the fiduciary duty of a corporate director; avoiding conflicts of interest; the duty of a public water system to provide clean drinking water; and long-term management of a public water system. A qualified trainer may include a California attorney, a person accredited under ANSI/IACET 1-2007, or a program sponsored by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation or California Rural Water Association.
So...in the video some say that the board can change the quorum and then others say they cant. Which claim is true???
It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”
- John Adams
My attorney son has done a legal review for me and distilled the highlights of the motion summary judgement for my legal layman brain. How I understand it ----
At this legal stage of events, the defendants have submitted to court, their opinions, laws and evidence why the case is not triable. In essence telling the judge "trust us", don't waste your time, here is the truth, plaintiffs have no proof or legal standing. Close the Case. Plaintiff pays our attorney fees.
If plaintiffs do not respond to defendants motion for summary judgement in OCT then the lawsuit is done. No decisions by the judge regarding quorum would be addressed.
If plaintiffs respond by opposing this motion in OCT then the judge reviews the legal merits and evidence of both parties arguments.
If the judge does not grant defendants motion for summary judgement then the case moves to trial by judge in NOV.
The NOV date is the end game for both parties. The judge decides the points of the case. Quorum is not the only issue decided or maybe opined on in this lawsuit. Allegations of board misconduct, eligibility to serve, record keeping, infrastructure mismanagement , billing / assessment practices are also "on the table".
Is this explanation adequate? Don't want to mislead any readers. thanks.
Last edited by RMcppSD; 08-08-2013 at 07:12 PM. Reason: added billing / assessment practices
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)