In a dispute over water rights, the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, California, enforced a prior settlement agreement and enjoined defendant property owner from tapping into a pipeline that carried water to plaintiff tenants’ property. The trial court also awarded plaintiffs $ 200,000 in attorney fees under the agreement. Defendant appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. shares CACI Verdict Forms
Overview
The pipeline, which was the sole source of water for plaintiffs’ parcel, ran through an easement over defendant’s parcel. Under a settlement agreement with plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest, defendant agreed not to take any more water from the pipeline. The trial court found that defendant breached the agreement. In affirming the judgment, the court held that: (1) defendant was not entitled to a jury trial because the gist of the action was in equity; (2) plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees, even though the remedy was specific enforcement rather than damages, because plaintiffs sought to enforce the settlement agreement; (3) disqualification of counsel was not compelled, even if the trial court believed testimony that counsel’s partner initiated a conversation with an opposing party, in violation of Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 2-100, because the trial court found that the conversation would have no continuing effect on the proceedings; and (4) the action was not time barred under Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (b), because the trespass was continuing and not necessarily permanent; therefore the three-year limitation did not run until after the last act of trespass.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment.
