RECENT VICTORY IN COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

1-19-10

We are very pleased to report a recent victory in a case before the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Firm partners Mike McMahon of Carmel & Naccasha’s Paso Robles office and Tim Carmel, District Counsel for the Cambria Community Services District (the “District”) had judgment in favor of Cambria affirmed by the Court of Appeal in a case in which the plaintiffs alleged that the District “took” their property in Cambria by refusing to provide water service to the parcels.

Plaintiffs Gregg Berge and Eagle Nest filed a lawsuit in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court alleging Inverse Condemnation and Breach of Contract arising from their inability to obtain a commitment from the District to provide water service. The District challenged the plaintiffs’ complaint, arguing that the lack of merit in plaintiffs’ claims had previously been decided by the court in numerous previous actions filed by Mr. Berge. The trial court agreed and issued judgment in the District’s favor.

On appeal, plaintiffs attempted to cast their claims as something different from what Mr. Berge had asserted in his prior unsuccessful suits. The District argued that regardless of the label the plaintiffs applied to their dispute with the District, the applicable facts and law were precisely the same as those involved in the prior suits. The District also argued that even if plaintiffs’ suit was not barred by the adverse decisions in Mr. Berge’s prior lawsuits, the plaintiffs did not allege a legal “taking” because they bought properties without water rights and consequently had no water rights taken.

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal determined that the plaintiffs’ entire action was barred by the court’s rulings in Mr. Berge’s prior actions. The Appellate Court determined that what the plaintiffs sought in this case was precisely what Mr. Berge unsuccessfully sought in his prior lawsuits: a commitment from the District to provide water service. The Court of Appeal also took note of the fact that Mr. Berge was declared a vexatious litigant because of his repeated filings alleging the same claims.