Somach Simmons & Dunn | Attorneys at Law
California
Oregon
Theresa Barfield is the managing shareholder of Somach Simmons & Dunn (2021 to the present). She has three decades of experience litigating large, complex cases and has built an impressive record of success for clients using every aspect of litigation at her disposal, including courtroom trials, binding arbitrations, and favorable settlements.
Theresa represents clients in all phases of civil litigation before state and federal courts, including the United States and California Supreme Courts. In addition, she advocates in state and federal administrative proceedings, bench trials, jury trials, appellate and writ proceedings, and alternative dispute resolution. As a career litigator with Somach Simmons & Dunn, she leads the litigation team with a unique combination of experience in the fields of water rights, natural resources, environmental, public agency, toxic and hazardous contamination, civil tort, premises, personal injury, and contract law.
Theresa is a member of the trial team representing the State of Texas in State of Texas v. State of New Mexico and State of Colorado, Case No. 141, Original, an original jurisdiction proceeding before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding enforcement of the Rio Grande Compact.
Theresa additionally represented Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) before the Santa Clara County Superior Court in the California Water Curtailment Cases (Byron-Bethany Irrigation District v. California State Water Resources Control Board, et al., Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 1-15-CV-285182, JCCP 4838), wherein the court issued a landmark water rights decision regarding the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) lack of jurisdiction over pre-1914 appropriators and the SWRCB’s violation of BBID’s constitutional due process rights. Theresa successfully led the team representing BBID in the SWRCB’s appeal before the Sixth District Court of Appeal (DCA), wherein the trial court’s water rights decision was affirmed. She also successfully appealed the trial court’s denial of an attorneys’ fees award to BBID. In that regard, the Sixth DCA reversed the trial court’s fees and costs decision and directed the trial court to order attorneys’ fees under the private attorney general doctrine set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Section 1021.5 allows a court to award attorneys’ fees to a successful party in an action resulting in the “enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest” where specific and rigorous criteria are met. Again, the Sixth DCA ruled in favor of the SSD clients and other districts, determining that their pursuit of the litigation met the exacting standards to recover attorneys’ fees under section 1021.5.
State of Texas v. State of New Mexico and State of Colorado, U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 141, Original. Member of trial team representing the State of Texas in original jurisdiction proceeding before U.S. Supreme Court regarding enforcement of the Rio Grande Compact.
Represent Klamath Project irrigation districts in the state of Oregon’s Klamath Basin Adjudication.
Byron-Bethany Irrigation District v. California State Water Resources Control Board, et al., Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 1-15-CV-285182 (JCCP 4838). Represent BBID before the Santa Clara County Superior Court in the California Water Curtailment Cases, wherein the court issued a landmark water rights decision in phase one of the proceedings regarding the SWRCB’s lack of jurisdiction over pre-1914 appropriators under Water Code section 1052 and the SWRCB’s violation of BBID’s constitutional due process rights. Represent BBID in an enforcement action before the SWRCB, resulting in a dismissal of the complaint for the prosecution team’s failure to prove its case.
California Water Curtailment Cases, Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District, 83 Cal.App.5th 164. Appeal by the SWRCB to the trial court finding that the SWRCB lacked jurisdiction over pre-1914 appropriators under Water Code section 1052 (Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 1‑15-CV-285182 (JCCP 4838)). The Court of Appeal affirmed, observing that the SWRCB’s authority to police priorities among post-1914 appropriative right holders does not extend to pre-1914 appropriative right holders, who retain pre-1914 rights unaltered. Certified for publication.
Monterey Coastkeeper v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. H042623. Draft Amici Curiae brief on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties in support of appeal by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, recognizing the vital interest in ensuring that public water agencies, cities, and counties managing waterways in California have clear guidance on their obligations under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code section 13000 et seq. Certified for publication.
Monterey Coastkeeper (Plaintiffs/Respondents) v. State Water Resources Control Board (Defendant/Appellant) and Grower Shipper Association of California (Intervenors/Appellants), Third District Court of Appeal, Case No. C080530. Draft appellate brief on behalf of farmers and growers in the Central Coast agricultural region regarding issues of critical importance to the future effective administration of California’s principal water quality statute, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Certified for publication.
Advise a city with a joint FERC license regarding contract and FERC license transfer and related issues relative to ownership and operation of a local dam, energy generation facility, and infrastructure.
Advise a city regarding intervention supporting amendment of FERC license and related issues.
Represent parties in complex litigation involving alleged violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), regarding alleged environmental contamination and responsibility for the contamination.
Assist a city with evaluation of an underground storage tank discovered during sewer replacement project, including evaluation of potential contamination issues, engagement with environmental consultants for geophysical investigation, removal, and remediation of the same; evaluate litigation options, defense, and indemnification obligations relative to contamination claims.
Evaluate per -and polyfluorinated substance (PFAS) related requirements set forth by Health and Safety Code section 13061 generally and as specifically applicable to private corporation activities; advise on reporting obligations, liability for civil penalties, and other statutory violations; evaluate exposure relative to regulatory authority enforcement actions.
Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. 407 (2018)
California Water Curtailment Cases, 83 Cal. App. 5th 164 (2022)
Monterey Coastkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board, 28 Cal. App. 5th 342 (2018)
Monterey Coastkeeper v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency, 18 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2017)
California
Oregon
