Title 10. Actions In Particular Cases · Chapter 7. Actions Relating to Groundwater Rights · Article 5. Judge · Enacted 2015 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 28, 2026
In one sentenceSection 838 disqualifies local superior court judges from presiding over a comprehensive adjudication, requires the Chairperson of the Judicial Council to assign a judge instead, presumes the case complex, bars peremptory and venue-based challenges, and lets related actions against a groundwater sustainability agency be coordinated with the adjudication.
(1)In a comprehensive adjudication conducted pursuant to this chapter, a judge of a superior court of a county that overlies the basin or any portion of the basin shall be disqualified. The Chairperson of the Judicial Council shall assign a judge to preside in all proceedings in the comprehensive adjudication.
(2)A judge of the superior court in which an action is filed may, on the court's own motion or the motion of a party, determine if the action is a comprehensive adjudication under Section 833. A motion for a determination pursuant to this paragraph shall receive calendar preference within the action and shall be resolved before other procedural or dispositive motions.
(b)A comprehensive adjudication is presumed to be a complex action under Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court.
(c)Sections 170.6 and 394 shall not apply in a comprehensive adjudication.
(d)Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 10726.6 of the Water Code, an action against a groundwater sustainability agency that is located in a basin that is being adjudicated pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to transfer, coordination, and consolidation with the comprehensive adjudication, as appropriate, if the action concerns the adoption, substance, or implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan, or the groundwater sustainability agency's compliance with the timelines in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
(e)The judge assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council pursuant to subdivision (a) shall determine if transfer, coordination, or consolidation is appropriate.
Plain-English Summary
Because a comprehensive adjudication can affect large numbers of local residents, businesses, and governments, § 838 removes the case from the ordinary local bench and puts it under statewide judicial assignment. Subdivision (a)(1) disqualifies any judge of a superior court in a county overlying the basin, and requires the Chairperson of the Judicial Council to assign a judge to preside over the entire proceeding. Subdivision (a)(2) lets the court where the action was filed decide, on its own motion or a party's motion, whether the action qualifies as a comprehensive adjudication under § 833 — with that determination given calendar preference over other procedural or dispositive motions.
Subdivision (b) presumes a comprehensive adjudication is a complex action under Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, which triggers the more intensive case management tools complex litigation calls for. Subdivision (c) bars two ordinary procedural devices from applying: peremptory challenges to a judge under § 170.6, and the change-of-venue provisions of § 394.
Subdivisions (d) and (e) address overlap between the adjudication and separate lawsuits against a groundwater sustainability agency concerning that agency's plan or its compliance with sustainability-timeline requirements — those actions become subject to transfer, coordination, or consolidation with the comprehensive adjudication, with the assigned judge deciding whether that's appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can't a local superior court judge preside over a comprehensive adjudication?
Section 838(a)(1) disqualifies judges of a superior court in a county overlying the basin, likely because those judges and their courts may have direct or indirect local ties to the outcome.
Who assigns the judge who will handle the case?
The Chairperson of the Judicial Council.
Can a party use a peremptory challenge to remove the assigned judge?
No. Section 838(c) provides that § 170.6 does not apply in a comprehensive adjudication.
Is a comprehensive adjudication automatically treated as a complex case?
It's presumed to be a complex action under Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court.
Can a separate lawsuit against a groundwater sustainability agency get folded into the adjudication?
Yes, if it concerns the agency's plan, substance, implementation, or compliance timelines, it's subject to transfer, coordination, or consolidation, as the assigned judge determines appropriate.
Amendment History
Added by Stats 2015 ch 672 (AB 1390),s 1, eff. 1/1/2016.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 28, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:judge assignment groundwater adjudication californiacomplex case groundwater lawsuit