Description: Action challenging the City of Oakland’s prohibition on the transportation and export of coal and petroleum coke to and through a rail and marine terminal for bulk and oversized cargo.
-
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 08/03/2020 Order Download Petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing of Ruling that Oakland Prohibition on Coal Operations at Terminal Violated Development Agreement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court’s decision affirming that the City of Oakland could not bar coal-related operations at a terminal being developed at a former Army base due to an agreement between the City and terminal’s developer that existing regulations would apply to the facility. 07/20/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by California as amicus curiae supporting petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc. 07/17/2020 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by the League of California Cities and East Bay Regional Park District in support of City of Oakland's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. 07/17/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project et al. in support of petitions for rehearing en banc. 07/09/2020 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by intervenor-defendants-appellants. 07/09/2020 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed by City of Oakland. 05/26/2020 Opinion Download District court’s bench trial ruling that Oakland breached development agreement affirmed. Ninth Circuit Upheld District Court’s Determination that Oakland Could Not Bar Coal Operations at Terminal. In a split opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that invalidated a City of Oakland resolution adopted in 2016 that applied a new ordinance barring coal-related operations at bulk material facilities to a rail-to-ship terminal being developed at a former army base. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court had not clearly erred when it found that adoption of the resolution violated a 2013 agreement between the City and the developer of the terminal. The development agreement provided that existing regulations would apply to the facility unless the City determined “based on substantial evidence” that failure to apply new regulations “would place existing or future occupants or users of the Project, adjacent neighbors, or any portion thereof, or all of them, in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety.” The district court—which allowed the developer to present evidence that had not been before the City Council—determined that Oakland breached the agreement because the City lacked substantial evidence that the coal operations posed a substantial health or safety danger. On the “pivotal” issue of standard of review, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the case should be reviewed as a breach of contract case, with deference given to the district court’s findings, instead of as an administrative law proceeding in which the court would grant deference to the City’s health and safety findings. The Ninth Circuit then found that the district court’s factual findings regarding the inadequacies in Oakland’s determinations regarding particulate emissions and other harms associated with coal operations were not clearly erroneous. The Ninth Circuit did not address greenhouse gas emissions or global warming, which the district court had briefly discussed and rejected as a legitimate basis for the coal ban. The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying environmental groups’ motion to intervene as of right. The appellate court upheld the district court’s determination that the groups’ contention that the development agreement was invalid was outside the scope of their permissive intervention and also rejected their argument that the agreement’s restriction on new regulations was limited to land-use regulations. The dissenting judge would have reversed because in his view the trial court erred by admitting evidence about the health and safety effects of coal handling that was not submitted to the City. 04/30/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by defendant-appellant City of Oakland. 04/30/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by intervenor-defendants-appellants. 02/15/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by National Mining Association et al. supporting plaintiff-appellee. 02/13/2019 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by California Building Industry Association in support of affirmance of the judgment in favor of Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC. 02/08/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by appellee. 12/17/2018 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by State of California as amicus curiae in support of appellant and reversal. 12/17/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus curiae brief filed by California State Association of Counties in support of reversal. 12/17/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project et al. in support of defendants and reversal. 12/17/2018 Amicus Motion Download Motion for leave to file amici curie brief in support of appellants and reversal of district court filed by public health advocates. 12/14/2018 Amicus Brief Download Amicus brief filed by the East Bay Regional Park District in support of appellant City of Oakland. 12/10/2018 Brief Download Opening brief filed by intervenor-defendants-appellants Sierra Club and San Francisco Baykeeper. 12/10/2018 Brief Download Opening brief filed by defendant-appellant City of Oakland. 08/01/2018 Order Download Motion to consolidate granted and motion to require joint briefing denied. The Ninth Circuit granted a motion by San Francisco Baykeeper and Sierra Club to consolidate their appeal with the City of Oakland's appeal and denied the appellee's motion to require joint briefing or reduced brief lengths. Opening briefs are due September 27, 2018, and the answering brief is due on October 29, 2018. Optional reply briefs must be filed within 21 days after service of the answering brief. -
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/19/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by Sierra Club and San Francisco Baykeeper. 06/13/2018 Notice of Appeal Download Notice of appeal filed by City of Oakland. 05/15/2018 Decision Download Judgment entered for plaintiff. California Federal Court Nullified Oakland Ordinance Barring Coal Operations at Shipping Terminal. The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that the City of Oakland’s adoption of an ordinance that barred coal operations at a bulk cargo shipping terminal breached the City’s agreement with a developer for the conversion of an old army base into the terminal. The development agreement provided that regulations adopted after the agreement’s signing would not apply to the terminal unless the City determined, based on “substantial evidence,” that the failure to apply the new regulation would pose a “substantial danger” to the health or safety of the people of Oakland. The court found that the record before the City Council did not contain sufficient evidence to support a determination that coal operations would pose a substantial danger. The court rejected the City’s primary argument that particulate matter from coal operations posed such a danger, and also found that the record did not support a determination that fire hazards, worker safety, or greenhouse gases would pose a substantial danger. The court noted that “[t]he hostility toward coal operations in Oakland appears to stem largely from concern about global warming.” The court said the argument that global warming allowed it to invoke the development agreement’s “substantial danger” exception “barely merits a response.” The court stated: “It is facially ridiculous to suggest that this one operation resulting in the consumption of coal in other countries will, in the grand scheme of things, pose a substantial global warming-related danger to people in Oakland.” 01/09/2018 Order Download Order issued regarding summary judgment hearing. Federal Court Held Trial on Terminal Developer’s Claim That Oakland’s Ban on Coal Transport Violated Development Agreement. During the week of January 15, the federal district court for the Northern District of California held a three-day bench trial in an action challenging the City of Oakland’s prohibition on the transportation and export of coal and petroleum coke to and through a rail and marine terminal for bulk and oversized cargo under development on land owned by the City. The bench trial concerned the terminal developer’s claim that the prohibition breached a development agreement that granted the developer the right and obligation to develop the land. The City argued that the development agreement allowed it to impose regulations on the development based on “substantial evidence” that regulation was necessary to avoid placing occupants, users, or neighbors of the project “in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety.” While the developer argued that the City could not rely on concerns regarding the potential for terminal operations to contribute to climate change because climate change is an issue of global scale, the City argued that “the unique, global nature of climate change doesn’t mean communities cannot or should not consider local, incremental contributions to climate change.” The City also cited other public health and safety concerns, including coal dust emissions. Prior to the trial, the court heard oral arguments on whether the City’s prohibition violated the dormant Commerce Clause because it interfered with or discriminated against interstate or foreign commerce. Also at issue in the case is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, or the Shipping Act of 1984 preempt the City’s action. 12/07/2017 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae environmental groups in support of defendants. 12/07/2017 Amicus Motion Download Amicus motion filed by environmental groups. 12/05/2017 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Motion for summary judgment filed by City of Oakland. 12/05/2017 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Motion for summary judgment filed by defendant-intervenors Sierra Club and San Francisco Baykeeper. 11/20/2017 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff. 06/06/2017 Order Download Order issued granting motion to intervene and denying motions to dismiss. 06/05/2017 Complaint Download First amended complaint filed. 01/30/2017 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed by City of Oakland. 12/07/2016 Complaint Download Complaint filed.