Yreka, Calif. — Ordered in October to transfer a case to the San Francisco Superior Court, the Superior Court in Siskiyou County will instead hold its own hearing Dec. 21 to decide whether or not it will transfer the case to the other court.

At issue is the case California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Department of Fish and Game, in which the Farm Bureau has alleged that the DFG has reinterpreted the meaning of “substantial” with regard to diversions and the notification requirements associated with those diversions.

In July, the DFG filed a motion to transfer the case to the San Francisco court so that it may be consolidated with another case, Klamath Riverkeeper v. California Department of Fish and Game, which alleges that the department’s current permitting programs in the Shasta and Scott river basins do not sufficiently protect beneficial uses of the rivers, including salmon spawning.

The San Francisco court found in favor of the DFG’s argument that the two cases were based on “common questions of fact or law,” ordering the Farm Bureau case transferred in September.

According to a brief submitted to the Siskiyou County court, the California Court of Appeals denied a request from the Farm Bureau that the San Francisco Court’s decision be vacated in October.
 

The Siskiyou County Superior Court has since requested that the DFG, represented by the state’s office of the Attorney General, submit a motion to transfer in that court.

“No provision of the Code of Civil Procedure or of the Rules of Court appears to allow such a motion to be brought in the transferor court (here, this Court), or for the transferor court to rule on such a motion,” reads a DFG brief submitted to the Siskiyou court on Nov. 30.

Part of the argument is based on section 403 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which states, “A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law.”

That same code also requires that the moving party make a “good faith effort” to obtain agreement from all parties to each action. The petitioners in Klamath and Farm Bureau both submitted briefs opposing the motion.

It is argued in the brief that the Siskiyou court lost its jurisdiction when the transfer motion was approved in the San Francisco court, stating, “Defendants respectfully request this Court to honor the San Francisco court’s Transfer Order.”

Despite the arguments against the Siskiyou court’s jurisdiction in the matter, the Attorney General’s office submitted its transfer motion and other materials for the scheduled Dec. 21 hearing.