Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01099/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01099-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

 On January 15, 2008 the parties jointly dismissed three Commission staff persons (Sherilyn

Sarb, Deborah Lee, and Diana Lilly) from the First Amended Complaint. 

- 1 - 07cv1099

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANCHESTER PACIFIC GATEWAY

LLC,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv1099 JM(RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

vs.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION,

et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants California Coastal Commission (“Commission”), all twelve members of the

Commission (Steve Blank, Sara Wan, Dr. William A. Burke, Steven Kram, Mary K. Shallenberger,

Patrick Kruer, Bonnie Neely, Mike Reilly, Dave Potter, Khatchik Achadjian, Larry Clark, and Ben

Hueso), and the Executive Director of the Commiussion (Peter M. Douglas) move for reconsideration

of this court’s April 25, 2008 Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Order”).1

Plaintiff Manchester Pacific Gateway LLC (“MPG”) opposes the motion.

"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

intervening change in controlling law. . . . There may also be other, highly unusual circumstances

warranting reconsideration." School Dist. N. 1J Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

Case 3:07-cv-01099-JM-RBB Document 59 Filed 07/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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 - 07cv1099

(9th Cir. 1993). The Commission does not identify any newly discovered evidence nor intervening

change in law. Rather, the Commission argues that the court committed clear error by (1) “holding

that the Commission may not require a coastal development permit for private activities on federal

lands excluded from the coastal zone under the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”),” (Motion

at p.2:5-7); and (2) treating MPG’s “project as a federal, rather than private, activity.” (Motion at

p.2:12). Finally the Commission argues that MPG’s counsel provided an overly broad assessment of

the Order to the press. (Motion at p.7:4-6). 

The court rejects the Commission’s grounds for reconsideration. First, the Commission

mischaracterizes this court’s holding. This court’s holding is a narrow one: the NBC site is excluded

from the definition of coastal zone because the use of the NBC site “is by law subject solely to the

discretion of . . . the Federal Government.” 16 U.S.C. §1453(1). Second, the involvement of MPG

in developing and operating the NBC site, as explained in the Order, does not violate the statutory

mandate as the legislation at issue specifically contemplates “the use of private parties to accomplish

the federal object to construct Navy administrative facilities. . . .” (Order at p.9:2-3). Finally, an

attorney’s characterization, or mischaracterization, of a court order to the press is not a ground

warranting reconsideration.

In sum, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-01099-JM-RBB Document 59 Filed 07/14/08 Page 2 of 2