04/28,"2008 15:37 FAX [~001/005

TO: Joel McElvain

Fax No: ~6o8202 Phone No:

FROM: Javier Oonzalez

C’,ourtroom Doputy

DATE: April 28, 2008

NOo OF PAGES:

NOTES:

5

U.S.A. "v. City of Santa M.o~ica

Case NOo CV08o2695-GW(Ex)

WAN~ING:

7h& )~csimile is iatended only J~r ~he rec~t)i~nt(%9 named above. ~f you r¢ceA,e this

facsimile by mis&;~ke, please telephone us aZ the above voice number w l~ us tcnow of the

erm~: If Nis.Ncsimil¢ contains priviNged or o~hetwise legally protecwd i~.~Nrmm:ion,

disclosut’e ~f the information to a~Vo~e other than the named recipient(~) is t:~ot gutho~#~ed~

and you may not fawfidly read, copy, or otherwise use this facsi.r~dle un&ss ),ou a~q~ a named

rectpient or a named reeipiem:’s audwHzed representative.
04!28t2008 15:87 FAX ~002t005

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

UN~.’FED STATES D][ST~CT COUAT

UNITED STATES OF" AME1-L1CA, et at.,

Plaimiffs,

V,

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

This matter is before the Court on ISle Ex

CASE NO. CV 08°2695 OW (E×)

01~d)ER GRANTrNG TEMPORARY

RESTRAIN~.~G ORDER AND SETTING

DATES FOR PREI,IMfNAI~Y

t NJ UN CTI, ON btEA}UN(}; ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY PR£LIMINARY

’~’NdldNCTI.ON SHOULD NOT ISSUE

Parte Applica.tion for TempormT Restrai~ing Order

("Plaintiffs; Application") filed, by plaimiffs United States of America a.~d Mau B, Peters, the

United S{ates Secretary of Transportation (co!lectively "Plaintif~a"). ’I’l~e Con~ .ha~ jurisdictior, of’

t!~is matter p~tr~uant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 axtd 1345 artd venue is proper pursumrt to 2g ’U.S.C. §

21 1391(b) a,~d 49 U.S.C. !i§ 46106., 46107(b) a~d 47111(0. Ha,gir~g reviewed tkte Co,mplai,~L

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ Applicaiio~t, the oppositioxt of defendant City of Santa Mor~ica ("the City"),

supposing papers, decl~a~ations and ex~ibits~ ~d oth.er materials in the case fi~¢~ ~c Court

GI~N’FS tl-m reque’.~ted temporau restrainit~g order and ~sst~ea~ a:a Order to Show Cause

prelimi:nau inunction should ~ot issue.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Cig 1ms eaacted ~m ordi~.a~ce dmt the City origir~ai~y

planned to begi~a enforcing on Ia’riday, April 24, 2008, bm wI~ich ihe parties agreed i~ oral

record discussions with this Court to fbrestaIl pead{ag the i,~stant hem’ing o,~ P1NntiffS’ Applie~do.r~.

See Soleo Decl., Exh. I a* 29-31. The City’s orditxa.rtce a:ffects the classes of airl)laraes whicl~
04,/28,/2008 1587 FAX I~I003/005

1 use Sancta Monica Airport (%he Airport°~). On April 23, 2008, Plaintiff& co~lcemed that

2 ordi~an.ee violate~ v~ious stat~to~ provisions m~d a se~leme:at agreement reached in ~ 994

3 ~e Ci~, ~md the Federal A~iation Admi~istratJon (’TAA"), issued m~ interim cease and desist o:rder

4 ("interim Order~’) t~ough Kevin L. Solco, the Acting Direc’tor of the O.!Sce of Ah’po~’t Safety at~d

5 St~dards of the FAA ("Acting Director"). ,%e Solco Deel. ’~] 3 & Exh. I. The I~terim Order

~ req~es ~hat the C.ity: 1) cease a~d desist immediately ~?om e~%rci~g ~e ordi~anc~, 2) publiety

7 ~thdraw a letter infon~ing aigJort users of ~hc impe~dh~g e~fforceme~~t of the ordit~s~ce, a~d

8 provide mitten notice to Nrpo~ users that the ordinm’~ce is in abeyance pe~:~ding comple~ior~

9 administrative process of the PAA. The halerim Order !~ther requires the Citg ~o provide copies

10 to Ne ~’AA of the; notification sent ~o ~sers (m~d a list of users to whom t!~e ~otifie~tion w’a~

11 ~d notiIies the CitT of its rights to respm~d ~o the Interim Order. See ¢

12 The Acting Director issued t2he I~terim Order pursuant to 14 C.P.R. { 16.11, as the res~:dt of

13 a delegatio~t from the Administrator of the FAA, who in turn has the fight to ~asu¢ ,,ucr~ ord .r,

14 49 U.SA.. { ~ 40I 13(a) ~d 46] 05(c). O~c~ ~x; Interim Order was ism,ed, i~ remNt~s irt effect

15 ils oma terms o,~mtil superseded." 49 U.S.C. { 46105(a). i’~ maybe amended., modified or m~.,p~nd,.d

16 by the Secret~tW or Administrator pursuant to 49 U.S.C. ~ 46 ~105(a), m %e C~;ty may apply for review

17 of the Interim Orde~ by lillng a pe’ddon ibr review i~ the [J’~Jied States Com~s o, A.pp..a.;:, J~or

1 g District of Columbia Circuit or Ninth v,,’cm’~:, see 49 c (- .... ’ U.o .... {i 46110(a). if the CiW files s~ac}~

19 petition., such corn has "exct~siv~jt~risdiction" to review the order once ~he cleN of the e~m’t sends

20 a copy of 6e petttmn to the necessao’ goven~mestal official, t;se 49 L .,~.v,. S ~.o llo(b)a~d

21 Foster v. ~’kinner, 70 F,3d 1084, 1087.-88 (9th Cir. 1995); F/’;~e~J&" q/Gatew~(y v. ,%~’¢e~", 251~ }’.3d ,,4,

:

22

23

24

25

26

27

2g

77 (2d Cir. 2001), cerl. ~~d sub nora., _b’rien&" qfGateway v. M~,am, 534 U.S. 1!28 (2002).

"the City argue~ *hat because it has ,~ot flied such a petition, the e~cl~tsive jurisdiction o:f the

D.C. or Ninth Cirmfits has not tacen effect, White that may be trtte here, tha, doe;~; :~ot mea~ ~at,

a result, this Corn1 has jurisdiciion to co,~.sider the procednra! or subs’tarot:ire faeries of the ]io.ter:ir~

Order. The staluto~" scheme plai:aly :~s~s ~hat power witl~ the Depamne:~t of Transportations, the FAA

or, if the CJ[V ~}le~s a petitio~, with the Courts of Appeal. Tim’& untiI ~’m Ci*;y J:ile~; a pe~itio~ befbre

ei~%er the D.C. or Nin~ Circuit, jurisdic~ion over the ma~ter remains at the govem~e~-~fl age~cy

2
04/28/2008 15:87 FAX ~004/005

1 l£vel. Tlte Intcrim Order itself sets forth the Ci~:y’~s procedural rights before t,~e agency. As

2 Co~ has no power to adjudicate eit~er the substar~tive merits or the proce, dural regula’i~y ~e~ing

3 to the issna~ce of the Interim Order a,r~d the City’s m’gnme~ts i~ fl~at respect i~ response to

4 Applica’tio~ ae misplaced. CJ: ~?deral Mat’~r~me Comm ’n ’v. ~S’o~h Carolina S~age Ports Au~h,,

5 U.S. 743, 762 (2002),t This Com’~s role is to erasure tha Nc fT~terim Order is enNrced per~di~,g

6 ~her proceedings on ’tN: Order in vem.tes other thrm this Cotn:’t, as discussed above. See 49

7 ~ 46106,46!07(b) a~d4711

8 The City ~gues tha~ ~h¢ Cou~ mttst cc, nsider the substa:t~tive and proced’~ral meri’ts of

9 I~terhn Order in the co~se of assessing Plaintiff1’ likeliho(~d of sv~ccess on the me~its,

10 plaiNy do not :request, by way offl~is ac~ior~: tha~: tl:~.e Con~: ap!)roYe of the lai:erim Order sad its

11 S~e Complaint ~ 2g.,31 & Prayer ~i~r R.e!ief, Plai~tif~:~ o~ly ask ~!’~at the Co~ e~i)~-ce f.h,~

12 Order pend:i~g ~y NAmer ,~view, eRher before tire FAA or ~the Circuit Comets clapped

13 CiW elect to proceed down that rome. There~bre, *l~is Coug ii~ in no position, either ~nder Ne law

14 by invitation, to ~orecast the merits of ~b.e l);terim Order aad its terms,

15 AccoMi~gly, ~e Cou~ gran~:s Plaintiff~’ Applicatioa. See Uni~ed~)ares ~v. N~lri--Cology,

16 992 F.2d 394, 398 (gth Cir. 1992) (~’I,~ s~tat.u~ou en%rceme,~t cases wkere tl,e govemmem ~s

17 the ’pm,babiliU of success" pro~tg of the i)relimimmT i~}gncl:ion reset, we presume it ~a~ met

18 ’possibili~ty ofirrepm’able iajury’ prong becat.~se ti~e passa.gc oftlx~ stg~2ute is ~tselfa~ im~lied

19 byCon!~ess ~hat violations will hm-m tl~e p~bl:ic."); C’~vil Ae~’onmeHes Bd ~.’. Car’@ee I)~ve~,

20 5!3 F.2d 375, 38~; (2d Cir. 1975),

21 In light of the aboYe d~scus~iort, the Cil), is ordered:

22 I) To comply with the [t~terim Order the Acting Director i~sued o1~. April 23, 2008;

23

Were {he h~eHm Order a ~nal agency ac1:io~l mid were file rna~zer be~bre this Cot~ N~de..e ttte

24 Pmeedur~ Act, ~hen perhaps the coaclusion mig[~ be oNerwise, although ~e Cou]* doe~ noi decide fl~at at thi~

S~e Ame,’icopte~’*, LLC v. ~’AA~ 44 ~ F.3d 726, 735 (9th Cir. 2006) (~’[IJfa~ }V~.A order" is no~ f)~al, neith~ we

25 dis~ict cou~ have jt~risdiction over the case [under the APA]."); c~ I/gl~ag¢ q[Beusen~i]~’~’ v, FAA, 457 F.Jd 52,

(D.C- Cir. 2006}; bur sgg Maw v. Sa.inn~’r, 34 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. !994). Hore, th,~ Ixge~im O:Ner [a just that,

26 interim, and it remains in effect "under its own ~e~ms or nntil s~persedeO," and may be amended, naodified or

suspended by*he Secreta~, or Administrator purst~anr ~o sections 46105(a) and 46110(~Q, S~e.~’rom~,rag~, Nc. 27 ~.~or,, 1996 U,S. dist. LEXIS 17366, *1 I-t2 (ND, Ill,, Nov. 2 !, 1996) ("Th¢ Net ~hat flue review sought here

¢ontzmplaled F~ action, rather than a c<~rnpleted action, is of no efi~et. Congress intended that (my review of FAA

28 action *~ke pIa,e i~ t},e eomxs of appeals.’") (EmpI~asis i.t~ original).

3
04/28/2008 1587 FAX [~0051005

1

2

4

5

6

7

9

t0

12

13

t4

15

16

!7

18

i9

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

2) To cease and desist from ~lle enforcemer~t of the: ordirtance during the pendeg~cy of’ the

FAA’s administrative :~,roce~di.r~g~. or ~ay proceedings before the United Sta~es Com~ of Appea!

the D~C. Circni~ or Ni’afh Circuit (excepl as expressly permitted by suct~ coa~ h~ co~mec~ion witt~

case), wi~Ja respec~ to ~e validiV o~~ thgt ordinance: aM

3) To pem~i~ Caiegory C amJ Category D aircralt to ,apera~.e at Ne Ai~or~ durk~g tha~. same

time period to tl~e extent that such a[rcraR ~e per~nitted ~o do so ~’~der federal law.

Unless the City wishes to w~i~,e ~e neeessivy of f~rther proceedings befbre ~l~is C:ouxq::,

Cou~ sets ~e foltowi~~g schedule %r Ne Order to Show Cause

- Ii’the CiW wishes ~o file a brief in co~ec~ion wi~h the Order to S[ww Cau.se,

to file~ provide a courtesy copy directly ~o the Court, at~d pe~so~aily serve

materials no 1Ner than 12 p.m. o~ May 6, 2008; artd

- If Plaintiffs wish to file a reply brief, they are to file, provide a courtesy

directly to the Court’s chambers, ~ad perso~aally se~e such materia~ no later

12:00 p,m. on May 12, 2008,

The Order to Show Cause l?,eadng will be held oa May 15, 2008, ~axt 8:30

TT 1~S SO O!IDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2008 ....