Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00038/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00038-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv0038

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO NAVY BROADWAY

COMPLEX COALITION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv0038 JM(WMc)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS; GRANTING 

vs. LEAVE TO AMEND 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; et al.,

Defendants. 

Defendant Manchester Pacific Gateway LLC (“MPG”) moves to dismiss the complaint for

failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff San Diego Navy Broadway Complex

Coalition (“NBCC”) opposes the motion. The other defendants have not responded to the motion nor

filed a statement of non-opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted

with 20 days leave to amend from the date of entry of this order.

BACKGROUND

On January 4, 2007, NBCC commenced this action against the Untied States Department of

Defense, the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Naval Facilities

Engineering Command Southwest, several individual federal officers in their official capacities

(collectively “Federal Defendants”), and MPG. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for

alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Administrative

Procedures Act (“APA”). 

Case 3:07-cv-00038-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0038

The project at issue involves a development agreement between the City of San Diego and the

Navy for the Navy Broadway Complex located on four city blocks along the waterfront in downtown

San Diego. Plaintiff challenges the November 22, 2006 finding that the that the project will not have

a significant impact on the environment (“FONSI”). The determination was based on an

environmental impact statement prepared in 1990, a record of decision prepared in 1992, and an

environmental assessment (“EA”) prepared in 2006. (Compl. ¶5). Also on November 22, 2006, MPG

and the Department of the Navy entered into a 99 year ground lease for the development of the

project.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants (1) failed to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (“EIS”); (2) failed to prepare a supplemental EIS (“SEIS”); and (3) failed to allow public

participation before making the FONSI. (Compl. ¶12-26). Plaintiff alleges that the EA was prepared

behind closed doors, without the public’s knowledge, and without any opportunity for public comment

on the accuracy and adequacy of the EA. (Compl. ¶¶19, 24). The EA concluded that there was no

need to update the 1990 EIS. Plaintiff challenges this finding and alleges that a modern-day EIS or

a SEIS is required to adequately assess the environmental impact of the project. (Compl. ¶¶15, 20,

24).

Plaintiff seeks a declaration from the court that Defendants failed to comply with NEPA and

the APA and that Defendants must prepare an EIS or an SEIS. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks an

injunction to prohibit Defendants, or anyone in privity with them, from taking any action on any

aspect of the project.

MPG argues that it is not a proper party to this action because it is a private development

company, not a federal agency subject to NEPA. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only in "extraordinary" cases.

United States v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981). Courts should grant 12(b)(6) relief

only where a plaintiff's complaint lacks a "cognizable legal theory" or sufficient facts to support a

cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:07-cv-00038-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv0038

Courts should not dismiss a complaint "unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of his claim which would entitle [the party] to relief." Moore v. City of Costa

Mesa, 886 F.2d 260, 262 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)), cert.

denied, 496 U.S. 906 (1990). The defect must appear on the face of the complaint itself. Thus, courts

may not consider extraneous material in testing its legal adequacy. See Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc.,

950 F.2d 1478, 1482 (9th Cir. 1991). The courts may, however, consider material properly submitted

as part of the complaint. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555

n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Finally, courts must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See

Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. dismissed, 116 S. Ct. 1710 (1996).

Accordingly, courts must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as reasonable

inferences to be drawn from them. See Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 1992).

However, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a Rule

12(b)(6) motion. See In Re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Motion

MPG asserts that only the Federal Defendants are proper parties under NEPA. NEPA imposes

duties and obligations on “all agencies of the Federal Government. . . .” 42 U.S.C. §4332. The

twofold purpose of NEPA is “to inject environmental considerations into the federal agency’s

decisionmaking process” and “to inform the public that the [federal] agency has considered

environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.” Weinberger v. Catholic Action of

Hawaii/Peace Education Project, 454 U.S. 139, 143 (1981). As noted in Macht v. Skinner, 916 F.2d

13, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1990), “ NEPA requires federal agencies - not states or private parties - to consider

the environmental impacts of their proposed actions (emphasis in original).”

Here, the three NEPA claims alleged by Plaintiff can only be asserted against the Federal

Defendants. The three claims specifically allege that Federal Defendants violated NEPA by failing

to prepare an EIS, failing to prepare an SEIS, and failing to allow adequate public comment before

making the FONSI. (Compl. ¶¶12-26). As the express statutory scheme imposes these environmental

/ / / 

Case 3:07-cv-00038-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss largely on the ground that MPG is a proper party under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 19. The court declines to consider Plaintiff’s opposition to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a motion

to join a necessary or indispensable party under Rule 19.

- 4 - 07cv0038

obligations only on federal agencies, the complaint as currently pled fails to state a claim against

MPG.1

 

In sum, the court grants the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against MPG. As

leave to amend is to be freely granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court grants Plaintiff’s oral

request for leave to amend the complaint. The amended complaint shall be filed within 20 days of

entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:07-cv-00038-JM-WMC Document 20 Filed 05/08/07 Page 4 of 4