Barbara J. Parker (SBN 69722) 

City Attorney 

Otis McGee, Jr. (SBN 71885) 

Chief Assistant City Attorney 

Colin Troy Bowen (SBN 152489) 

Supervising Deputy City Attorney 

E-mail: cbowen@oaklandcityattorney.org 

OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY 

One Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Tel: 510.238.3601 Fax: 510.238.6500 

Kevin D. Siegel (SBN 194787) 

E-mail: ksiegel@bwslaw.com 

Gregory R. Aker (SBN 104171) 

E-mail: gaker@bwslaw.com 

Christopher M. Long (SBN 305674) 

E-mail: clong@bwslaw.com 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 

1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 

Oakland, CA 94612-3501 

Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: 510.839.9104 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF OAKLAND 

15 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

16 

17 

18 

19 

OAKLAND BULK & OVERSIZED 

TERMINAL, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF OAKLAND, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-07014-VC 

DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND'S 

NOTICE OF RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION 

TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF 

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 

Date: April 20, 2017 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Ctrm.: No. 4, 17th Floor 

Judge: Honorable Vince Chhabria 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 1 MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 

27 

28 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, April 20, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Vince Chhabria at Courtroom No. 4, 

17th Floor the United States District Courthouse, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 

San Francisco, California 94102, Defendant City of Oakland (the "City") will, and hereby does, 

move the Court for an order dismissing the third claim for relief in the Complaint ("Complaint") 

filed by Plaintiff Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC ("Plaintiff' or "OBOT"). As we set 

forth more fully in the accompanying memorandum, the City makes this Motion pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground that as a matter of law, the facts 

alleged in the Complaint and the plain language of the written Development Agreement that is the 

subject of the breach of contract claim (and is attached as Exhibit A to the accompanying Request 

for Judicial Notice) do not support a viable claim by OBOT against the City for breach of the 

Development Agreement. OBOT cannot cure this breach of contract claim by amending its 

Complaint. Accordingly, this Motion seeks an order dismissing OBOT's third claim for relief 

with prejudice. 

This Motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities, the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice and exhibits thereto filed and served 

herewith ("RJN"), the papers on file herein and such other matters as the Court may consider at or 

before the hearing on the Motion. 

Dated: January 30, 2017 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

By: s/ Kevin D. Siegel 

Kevin D. Siegel 

Gregory R. Aker 

Christopher M. Long 

Attorneys for Defendant City of Oakland 

22 

23 

24 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 2 MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 
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 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION / SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 

A. Allegations and Judicially Noticeable Facts 2 

B. Procedural History 4 

III. DISCUSSION 5 

A. Applicable Legal Standards for the Motion to Dismiss 5 

1. Courts Consider Factual Allegations and Judicially Noticeable 

Documents 5 

2. California Law Applies to the Supplemental Claim for Breach of 

Contract 5 

3. Interpretation of a Contract May Be Resolved by Motion to Dismiss 6 

B. OBOT Did Not Acquire a Vested Right to Store or Handle Coal or Coke 6 

1. A Development Agreement Provides a Limited Exception to the 

Rule that a City Retains Its Police Powers to Modify Land Use 

Regulations Until the Developer Has Incurred Construction Costs 

in Reliance on a Building Permit 7 

2. The DA Did Not Create a Vested Right to Store or Handle Coal or 

Coke 8 

a. Pursuant to Section 3.2, the Omission of an Express Right to 

Store or Handle Coal or Coke Means that No Such Right 

Was Created 9 

(1) The DA Expresses No Right to Store or Handle Coal 

or Coke 9 

(2) The DA's Silence Means that Current Regulations 

Apply 10 

(3) The City Council Properly Interpreted the DA 11 

b. Section 3.4 Did Not Create the Claimed Vested Right 12 

3. The City Did Not Breach the DA by Extinguishing a Non-Existent 

Right 13 

C. Assuming Arguendo that the Coal-Coke Regulations Are Development 

Regulations that Are Addressed by the DA, OBOT's State Law Claim Is 

Time Barred 14 

IV. CONCLUSION 15 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 
OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

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 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

Page(s) 

Federal Cases 

Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 

871 F.Supp.2d 913 (N.D. Cal. 2012) 13 

F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records, 

621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2010) 6 

Fayer v. Vaughn, 

649 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) 5 

James L. Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., 

2012 WL 2568208 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012) 13 

Kroetch v. BAC Home Loan Servs., 

2011 WL 4502350 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) 13 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 

250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) 5 

Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Intl LLC, 

632 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 7011) 

Oracle Corp. v. DrugLogic, Inc., 

807 F.Supp.2d 885 14 

PageMasters, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., 

2009 WL 825810 (D. Ariz., Mar. 30, 2009) 6 

U.S. v. Ritchie, 

342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) 5 

Skilstaf Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 

669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2012) 6 

Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power, 

623 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2010) 5 

Trishan Air, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 

635 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 2011) 5 

State Cases 

ACS Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 

147 Cal.App.4th 137 (2007) 6 
AIU Ins. Co. v. FMC Corp., 

51 Ca1.3d 807 (1995) 6 

Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. S. Valley Area Planning Corn., 

101 Cal.App.4th 1333 (2002) 8 

Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Corn., 

17 Ca1.3d 785 (1976) 7 

Buena Park Motel Ass'n v. City of Buena Park, 

109 Cal.App.4th 302 (2003) 1 

City of Berkeley v. Superior Court, 

26 Ca1.3d 515 (1980) 12 

City of Oakland v. Oakland Waterfront Company, 

118 Cal. 160 (1897) 12 

Court House Plaza Co. v. City of Palo Alto, 

117 Cal.App.3d 871 (1981) 8 

12 

Grey v. Am. Mgmt. Servs., 

204 Cal.App.4th 803 (2012) 9 

Hafen v. County of Orange, 

128 Cal.App.4th 133 (2005) 7 

Hensler v. City of Glendale 

8 Ca1.4th 1 (1994) 14, 15 

17 

Hermosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v. City of Hermosa Beach, 

86 Cal.App.4th 534 (2001) 7 

Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dep't, 

127 Cal.App.4th 520 (2005) 14 

Marks v. Whitney, 

6 Ca1.3d 251 (1971) 11 

22 

Moss Dev. Co. v. Geary, 

41 Cal.App.3d 1 (1974) 6 

Nat. Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 

33 Ca1.3d 419 (1983) 12 

Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 

41 Ca1.4th 811 (2011) 6 

27 

Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo Cty., 

28 84 Cal.App.4th 221 (2000) 7 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

13 

14 

15 

16 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

24 

25 

26 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 - iv - MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 

Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Bd., 

35 Ca1.3d 858 (1984) 8 

Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp., 

188 Cal.App.4th 69 (2010) 6 

Toigo v. Town of Ross, 

70 Cal.App.4th 309 (1998) 7 

State Statutes 

Civ. Code § 1636 6 

Gov. Code § 65009 1, 14, 15 

Gov. Code § 65009(a)(3) 14 

Gov. Code § 65009(c)(1) 1, 2, 14, 15 

Gov. Code §§ 65864-65869.5 7 

Gov. Code § 65865.4 8, 12 

Gov. Code § 65866 8, 12 

Oakland Army Base Public Trust Exchange Act 2 

Pub. Res. Code § 6009.1(c)(13) 12 

Shipping Act of 1984 4 

Subdivision Map Act 15 

Federal Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 5 

Municipal Codes 

Oakland Planning Code Ch. 17.138 12, 13 

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 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

I. INTRODUCTION / SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

OBOT proposes to develop a ship-to-rail Terminal ("Terminal") at the former Oakland 

Army Base. OBOT alleges that the City breached a Development Agreement ("DA") by 

adopting a health and safety code ordinance instituting a ban on storing and handling coal and 

coke ("Ordinance") and a resolution applying the ban to the Terminal ("Resolution"). OBOT has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for two over-arching reasons. First, 

OBOT never acquired the claimed vested right; no such right was thus extinguished. Second, 

assuming arguendo that the challenged Ordinance and Resolution constitute land use regulations 

that could have been the subject of the DA, OBOT's challenge to the legislation is time barred. 

The City Did Not Extinguish a Vested Right in Breach of the DA 

Development agreements are limited, statutory exceptions to the California Supreme 

Court rule that a developer secures a vested right to preclude imposition of new land use 

regulations only after (1) the governmental entity issues a building permit, and (2) the developer 

substantially relies on the permit by expending construction costs. 

Consistent with the California Government Code and the Oakland Planning Code, the DA 

created a vested right to pre-existing land use regulations only to the extent expressly stated in the 

DA. Section 3.2 of the DA states: "Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the 

permitted uses of each Phase of the Project ... shall consist only of those described in and 

expressly permitted by" the subject City approvals and agreements, and where the documents "are 

silent," subsequent regulations apply. RJN, Exh. A (italics added). The DA did not expressly 

provide a vested right to store or handle coal or coke at the Terminal, nor any vested right to be 

free of further health and safety regulations of the type at issue. This silence establishes that 

OBOT never acquired such a vested right. Thus, the Ordinance and Resolution the City adopted 

in 2016 (RJN, Exhs. B and C) apply. 

OBOT's reliance on sections 3.4 and 3.4.2 of the DA is misplaced. Section 3.4 does not 

apply when another section "expressly" addresses the issue, as section 3.2 clearly does. In 

addition, section 3.4 applies to regulations that "govern the development of the Project." RJN, 

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 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
Exh. A. Pursuant to California law and the Oakland Planning Code, section 3.4 only vests OBOT 

with rights to develop pursuant to pre-existing land use regulations (e.g., zoning and building 

laws). The challenged Ordinance and Resolution do not fall within the scope of section 3.4. 

In the absence of a vested right for the City to extinguish, it is axiomatic that there could 

be no breach of contract. 

Any Challenge to the Ordinance and Resolution Is Time Barred 

Even if OBOT were correct that the Ordinance and Resolution constitute development 

regulations that are limited by the DA, the third claim for relief is barred by the 90-day statute of 

limitations of California Government Code section 65009(c)(1). 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. Allegations and Judicially Noticeable Facts. 

The pertinent allegations (accepted as true for the limited purposes of this motion) and 

terms of the judicially noticeable DA, Ordinance, and Resolution referenced in the Complaint 

(RJN, Exhs. A — C) are set forth below. 

In 1999, the U.S. Government closed the Oakland Army Base. The U.S. transferred 

approximately 170 acres (the "Gateway Development Area") to the City. Complaint, ¶ 21.1The 

City issued a Request for Qualifications from private developers who would develop the site. 

Complaint, ¶ 23. OBOT's affiliate and predecessor-in-interest, CCIG, submitted a proposal to 

develop the Terminal, a rail-to-ship marine terminal for bulk and oversized commodities. 

Complaint, ¶¶ 24-25, 29. 

Prior to entering any agreements with the City, CCIG, OBOT and associated third parties 

identified coal as a potential commodity for the proposed terminal. See, e.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 25-

26. However, neither CCIG, OBOT nor any other party secured any land use approval or other 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

1The property transfer involved several steps. Pursuant to the Oakland Army Base Public 

Trust Exchange Act, the waterfront portion and adjacent submerged lands were confirmed as 

sovereign land held in trust on behalf of the public, for uses such as commerce, navigation and 

fishing. See RJN, Exh G [Land Patents, Parcels E and F-1]; see also RJN Exh. F [Stats. 2005, 

Ch. 664 §§ 3(b), (g)]. The relevance of the public trust doctrine is discussed at pages 11-12 

below. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

BURKE, WILLIAMS Sr 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

1 6-CV-70 I 4-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
right regarding the inclusion of coal or coke2as a commodity that could be stored or handled at 

any proposed facility at the former Army Base. 

Specifically, in 2012, the City and Prologis/CCIG (a joint venture of Prologis, Inc. and 

CCIG) entered into a Lease Disposition and Development Agreement ("LDDA") for the Gateway 

Development Area. Complaint, ¶¶ 27-28. OBOT does not, and cannot, allege that either coal or 

coke is identified in the LDDA as a potential commodity. 

In 2013, the City and OBOT's predecessor-in-interest entered into the DA that is the 

subject of OBOT's third claim for breach of contract. The DA provides for the development of 

the Terminal at the Gateway Development Area. Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 27, 29. The DA generally 

describes the Terminal simply as a "ship-to-rail terminal designed for the export of noncontainerized bulk goods and the import of oversized or overweight cargo." See RJN, Exh. A, 

Exh. D-2, § C(4); see also DA, Recital H ("Developer proposes ... a marine terminal for bulk and 

oversized cargo and other uses and improvements in accordance with the City Approvals, the 

LDDA and this Development Agreement ...."). OBOT does not allege that either coal or coke is 

identified in the DA as a potential commodity; in fact the DA is silent regarding coal and coke.3 

Beginning in 2014, the City pursued a series of legislative actions regarding a potential 

ban on shipping coal and coke through the Terminal, including the City Council's adoption of a 

resolution in June 2014 opposing the transport of hazardous materials, such as coal and coke, 

through Oakland. Complaint, 1136. 

Beginning in September 2015, the City held public hearings regarding whether and under 

what terms and conditions to ban and/or regulate coal and coke shipping, handling or storage 

within the City. Complaint, ¶ 37. The City retained experts to gather and review evidence in 

connection with the public hearings and to study and prepare reports on environmental issues 

associated with coal and coke. Complaint, TT 41, 43, 45, 96, 98. 

On June 24, 2016, the City published a staff report and proposed (1) an ordinance to ban 

2 The Complaint refers to petroleum coke (AKA "petcoke"). See Complaint, ¶ 2. The 

City refers more generally to coke, which includes petcoke. 

3Relevant provisions of the DA are discussed at pages 8-13 below. 

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 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

1 6-CV-70 14-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
certain activities related to coal and coke and (2) a resolution applying the ordinance to OBOT 

(subsequently numbered Ordinance No. 13385 C.M.S. ("Ordinance") and Resolution No. 86234 

C.M.S. ("Resolution")). Complaint, ¶ 46; see also RJN, Exhs. B and C. The staff report included 

and relied upon evidence in the public hearings, the expert reports, and other evidence. See 

Complaint, TT 46, 96. 

On June 27, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing, introduced the Ordinance and 

adopted the Resolution (together, the "Coal-Coke Regulations"). On July 19, 2016, the City 

Council unanimously adopted the Ordinance by the affirmative votes of eight Councilmembers. 

Complaint, ¶ 47; RJN, Exh. B.4The Ordinance was effective immediately pursuant to Charter 

sections 216. RJN, Exh. B, § 6. The Resolution became effective upon the effective date of the 

Ordinance. RJN, Exh. C, § 9. 

OBOT offers a conclusory allegation that the Coal-Coke Regulations "ban coal and 

petcoke." Complaint, 1147. In fact, the Coal-Coke Regulations prohibit the storage and 

handling of coal and coke at facilities such as the proposed Terminal, while allowing some 

limited applications for the commodities. See RJN, Exhs. B and C. 

OBOT has not committed to developing the Terminal for storing or handling coal or coke. 

Rather, OBOT is negotiating with Terminal Logistics Solutions ("TLS") regarding financing, 

construction and operation of the Terminal. OBOT and TLS have entered into a Sublease Option, 

but OBOT has not conveyed any rights to TLS. Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 35. OBOT does not allege that 

either coal or coke is identified in the Sublease Option. 

B. Procedural History. 

OBOT's Complaint, which was filed on December 7, 2016, alleges three Claims for 

Relief: (1) Unconstitutionality Under the Commerce Clause; (2) Preemption Under the Interstate 

Commerce Commission Termination Act [re: railroads], the Hazardous Materials Transportation 

Act, and the Shipping Act of 1984; and (3) Breach of Contract [the 2013 DA]. Complaint, 

125-67. OBOT prays for declaratory and injunctive relief. Complaint, pp. 40-41. 

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 4The Complaint incorrectly alleges the City Council adopted the Ordinance on June 27. 

- 4 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
III. DISCUSSION 

A. Applicable Legal Standards for the Motion to Dismiss. 

1. Courts Consider Factual Allegations and Judicially Noticeable Documents. 

A defendant may move to dismiss a claim that fails to allege facts upon which relief can 

be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "'To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' 

Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 

The Court should "begin `by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than 

conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.' Id. (citations omitted). The Court 

should not accept a pleading's legal conclusions that are "'cast in the form of factual 

allegations.' Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). 

A court may take judicial notice of the content and existence of "matters of public 

record," but not of facts "subject to reasonable dispute." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 

668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001). A court may also consider an extrinsic document if its "authenticity 

is not contested and the plaintiffs complaint necessarily relies on" it. Id. at 688; U.S. v. Ritchie, 

342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (incorporation by reference proper "if the plaintiff refers 

extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiffs claim"). 

2. California Law Applies to the Supplemental Claim for Breach of Contract. 

California law applies. As provided on the face of the DA: "This Development 

Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the Parties, shall be governed by and interpreted in 

accordance with the Laws of the State of California." RJN, Exh. A, § 14.11. Moreover, as a 

supplemental claim for relief, California law applies. Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. 

Lapmaster LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011). 

"'When interpreting state law, federal courts are bound by decisions of the state's highest 

court." Trishan Air, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 

In the absence of a controlling decision, "'a federal court must predict how the highest state court 

would decide the issue using intermediate appellate court decisions, decisions from other 

jurisdictions, statutes, treatises, and restatements as guidance.' Id. (citation omitted). 

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 

- 5 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
3. Interpretation of a Contract May Be Resolved by Motion to Dismiss. 

"[T]he interpretation of a contract, including resolution of an arguable ambiguity, is a 

question of law" that may be resolved on a pleadings challenge. Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. 

Corp., 188 Cal.App.4th 69, 76 (2010) (demurrer sustained; citing Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 

Inc., 11 Ca1.4th 1, 18 (1995)). ""[L]anguage in a contract must be construed in the context of that 

instrument as a whole, and in the circumstances of that case, and cannot be found to be 

ambiguous in the abstract." ACS Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 147 

Cal.App.4th 137, 147 (2007) (demurrer sustained; quoting Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 

Ca1.4th 1254, 1265 (1992)). 

"A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as 

it existed at the time of contracting ...." Cal. Civ. Code § 1636. "[I]ntent is to be inferred, if 

possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract," read in their "ordinary and popular 

sense," unless technical or special usage applies. AIU Ins. Co. v. FMC Corp., 51 Ca1.3d 807, 822 

(1995) (citing Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638, 1639). 'The language of a contract is to govern its 

interpretation, if [it] is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.—E B. T Prods., LLC 

v. Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1639). Courts 

will thus not add a term where the contract is silent. Moss Dev. Co. v. Geary, 41 Cal.App.3d 1, 9 

(1974) (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1858 and Jensen v. Traders & Gen. Ins. Co., 52 Ca1.2d 786, 

790 (1959)). 

A federal court properly dismisses a breach of contract claim under California law where 

its interpretation of the unambiguous contract provisions demonstrates there was no breach, 

despite allegations to the contrary. Skilstaf Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1017-18 

(9th Cir. 2012); see also PageMasters, Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., 2009 WL 825810, at *11 (D. Ariz., 

Mar. 30, 2009) (dismissing breach of contract claim pursuant to California law; despite plaintiff's 

contentions, subject provision was unambiguous and the alleged facts did not constitute a breach). 

B. OBOT Did Not Acquire a Vested Right to Store or Handle Coal or Coke. 

OBOT must plead: "(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse 

for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff." Oasis 

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 

- 6 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 41 Ca1.4th 811, 821 (2011). The Complaint, when read along with 

the terms of the DA upon which the allegations are based, fails to state a breach of contract claim. 

The Complaint presumes that OBOT acquired a vested right to store and handle coal and 

coke, and that the City breached the DA by attempting to take that right away. However, review 

of the law governing development agreements and pertinent contract provisions that OBOT 

ignored establishes that OBOT never acquired any right to store or handle coal or coke. Thus, 

OBOT has no basis to claim a breach of a right that it never acquired. 

1. A Development Agreement Provides a Limited Exception to the Rule that a 

City Retains Its Police Powers to Modify Land Use Regulations Until the 

Developer Has Incurred Construction Costs in Reliance on a Building Permit. 

The landmark California Supreme Court case regarding vested rights provides that a 

developer has no vested right in existing regulations until (1) permits authorizing construction 

have been issued (e.g., a building permit), and (2) the developer has performed substantial work 

in reliance thereon. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Ca1.3d 

785, 796 (1976); see also Toigo v. Town of Ross, 70 Cal.App.4th 309, 321 (1998) ("In California, 

the developer's right to complete a project as proposed does not vest until a valid building permit, 

or its functional equivalent, has been issued and the developer has performed substantial work 

and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on the permit"); Hermosa Beach Stop Oil 

Coalition v. City of Hermosa Beach, 86 Cal.App.4th 534, 542, 551-52 (2001) (no vested right to 

drill for oil on city land pursuant to lease or use permit; owner thus subject to subsequent 

ordinance banning oil drilling); Hafen v. County of Orange, 128 Cal.App.4th 133, 135, 142-43 

(2005) (owner could not rely on subdivision map approval; county retained its police powers to 

impose subsequent regulations that restricted use of property). 

The State Legislature adopted the Development Agreement Statute (Cal. Gov't Code 

§§ 65864 — 65869.5, the "DA Statute") to allow parties to create limited exceptions to the 

foregoing rule. Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo Cty., 84 

Cal.App.4th 221, 229-30 (2000). The DA Statute "permit[s] local governments to freeze zoning 

early in the development process and before the issuance of building permits." Id.; see also id. at 

226-27 ("the statute allows a city or county to freeze zoning and other land use regulation 

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 

- 7 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
applicable to specified property"). Notably, the statute applies to zoning and land use regulations, 

not to the health and safety regulations that are at issue here. 

The DA Statute describes the scope of zoning and land use regulations for which vested 

rights may be acquired. Unless the development agreement provides otherwise: 

rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the 

land, governing density, and governing design, improvement, and 

construction standards and specifications, applicable to development of 

the property subject to a development agreement, shall be those rules, 

regulations, and official policies in force at the time of execution of the 

agreement. A development agreement shall not prevent a city ... in 

subsequent actions applicable to the property, from applying new rules, 

regulations, and policies which do not conflict with those rules, 

regulations, and policies applicable to the property as set forth herein .... 

Cal. Gov't Code § 65866 (emphasis added). 

Section 65865.4 of the DA Statute lists the types of regulations that may be locked-in by a 

development agreement. The list only includes "any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, 

subdivision, or building regulation." Cal. Gov't Code § 65865.4. 

"[T]he rights which may 'vest' through reliance on a government permit are no greater 

than those specifically granted by the permit itself" Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control 

Bd., 35 Ca1.3d 858, 866 (1984) (italics added); see also Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. S. Valley Area 

Planning Corn., 101 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1348-50 (2002) (issued permits did not create vested right 

to proceed with unpermitted development); Court House Plaza Co. v. City of Palo Alto, 117 

Cal.App.3d 871 (1981) (developer only "acquires a vested right to complete construction in 

accordance with the terms of the permit") (emphasis added). Thus, a development agreement 

creates vested zoning and land use rights only to the extent specifically set forth therein. 

2. The DA Did Not Create a Vested Right to Store or Handle Coal or Coke. 

The Complaint presents a conclusory, unsupported contention that OBOT had acquired a 

vested right to store and handle coal and coke. But OBOT fails to discuss DA provisions that 

address the creation of vested rights and govern the circumstances in which zoning and land use 

regulations are frozen. Review of (a) DA section 3.2, and (b) DA sections 3.4 and 3.4.1 shows 

OBOT never acquired such a vested right. 

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 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 8 MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 

28 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 
1 a. Pursuant to Section 3.2, the Omission of an Express Right to Store or 

Handle Coal or Coke Means that No Such Right Was Created. 

2 

(1) The DA Expresses No Right to Store or Handle Coal or Coke. 

3 

Consistent with the underlying statutory and case law, the DA expressly vested OBOT 

with certain, limited rights to develop the Terminal pursuant to then-existing zoning and land use 

regulations, where expressly permitted. As stated in section 3.2: 

This Agreement vests in Developer the right to develop the Project in 

accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City 

Approvals and the Existing City Regulations; provided that City shall have 

the right to control development of the Project in accordance with the 

provisions of this Agreement, the LDDA and each Ground Lease. 

Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the permitted uses 

of each Phase of the Project, the density and intensity of use of each 

Phase, and the siting, height, envelope, and massing and size of 

proposed buildings in each Phase, shall consist only of those described 

in and expressly permitted by, and subject to all terms, conditions and 

requirements of, the City Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals, the 

LDDA, and the applicable Ground Lease for each Phase.... This 

Agreement, the City Approvals, the LDDA and the Ground Lease, and 

where such instruments are silent, the Applicable City Regulations, 

shall control the overall design, development and construction of the 

Project, and all on- and off-site improvements and appurtenances in 

connection therewith. In the event of any inconsistency between the 

Applicable City Regulations and this Agreement, this Agreement shall 

control, except that if the inconsistency cannot be reconciled by application 

of this rule of construction, the provision which, as determined by the City 

Council, best gives effect to the purposes of this Agreement shall control. 

Exh. A to RJN, § 3.2 (emphasis added). 

The DA omits any reference to coal or coke, and does not state that OBOT has the right to 

store or handle "any and all" non-containerized bulk goods. Given that section 3.2 provides that 

permitted uses are only those "expressly permitted" by the approvals and agreements listed 

therein, and that the DA did not expressly identify any right to store or handle coal or coke, 

OBOT never acquired a vested right to store or handle coal or coke at the Terminal. 

Further, the DA includes an integration clause: "This written Agreement and the exhibits 

hereto contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to 

the subject matter hereof...." RJN, Exh. A, § 14.6. Thus, any alleged pre-DA "agreements" 

regarding coal would be irrelevant. Grey v. Am. Mgmt. Servs., 204 Cal.App.4th 803, 807 (2012) 

("[b]ecause the contract says it is the entire agreement, common sense dictates that it supersedes 

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 

- 9 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
other prior agreements related to" the subject of the agreement). 

Moreover, the Complaint's allegations that interested parties had identified coal as a 

commodity of interest, prior to approval of the DA, supports the City. Given that a development 

agreement may create an exception to a city's police power right to impose new regulations, it 

was incumbent upon OBOT (or, more accurately, its predecessor-in-interest) to ensure that the 

DA articulated the circumstances in which it obtained vested rights. But the DA does not provide 

for development of a terminal designed for storing and handling coal and coke. Pursuant to 

California law, this absence confirms that the City retained its police powers to impose new 

regulations governing the storing and handling of coal and coke at the Terminal.5 

In sum, the language of the DA, read in light of underlying law governing vested rights 

and development agreements, compels the conclusion that OBOT did not acquire a vested right to 

preclude subsequent regulations regarding storage and handling operations at the Terminal. 

(2) The DA's Silence Means that Current Regulations Apply. 

In addition, section 3.2 (quoted above) provides that where the DA and related approvals 

and agreements are silent, "Applicable City Regulations" shall control. DA section 1.1 defines 

"Applicable City Regulations" to include (i) "Existing City Regulations" and (ii) "other City 

Regulations." RJN, Exh. A. Critical here is the definition of "City Regulations": 

The General Plan of City, the Oakland Army Base Redevelopment Plan (as 

amended prior to the Adoption Date), Oakland Army Base Reuse Plan (as 

amended prior to the Adoption Date), and all other ordinances, resolutions, 

codes, rules, regulations and policies in effect as of the time in question. 

RJN, Exh. A, § 1.1 (emphasis added). 

Notably, the definition of City Regulations specifies that certain applicable regulations are 

locked-in as of the "Adoption Date" (i.e., the date of approval of the DA), and that "all other" 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

5The DA also contemplated that the rights of OBOT as occupant of the land would be 

governed by a separate Ground Lease and that, "in the event of any conflict between any 

provision of this [Development] Agreement and any provision of any applicable Ground Lease, 

the provision of the applicable Ground Lease shall govern and control." RJN, Exh. A, § 14.27. 

The City reserves its argument that the 2016 Ground Lease, which requires the OBOT to comply 

with all laws, requires OBOT to comply with the Ordinance and Resolution. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-10- 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
regulations are those "in effect as of the time in question." Given that a core purpose of the DA is 

to differentiate between those regulations that existed at the time the DA was adopted from those 

that City subsequently adopted, "the time in question" necessarily means the time when OBOT 

seeks to engage in a particular activity (i.e., the present). 

Thus, pursuant to section 3.2, when the DA and associated approvals or agreements are 

silent (e.g., as to the development of the Terminal for the storage and handling of any particular 

non-containerized bulk good), the ordinances and resolutions in effect as of the time in question 

(i.e., now) apply to "control the overall design, development and construction of the Project, and 

all on- and off-site improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith." The DA is 

deafeningly silent as to coal and coke, and the Complaint does not allege any other approval or 

agreement addresses any rights to store or handle these commodities. Accordingly, the 

ordinances and resolutions now in effect (i.e., the Coal-Coke Regulations) govern. 

(3) The City Council Properly Interpreted the DA. 

The foregoing analysis is dispositive. However, if there is any doubt, the Court should 

defer to the City's interpretation and resolution of the issue. 

First, the final sentence of section 3.2 of the DA provides that, "[i]n the event of an 

inconsistency" between the DA and the Applicable City Regulations (which includes both 

Existing City Regulations and current City Regulations, as discussed above), which inconsistency 

remains unresolved, the City Council determines which interpretation "best gives effect to the 

purposes of this Agreement ...." When it adopted the Resolution, the City Council determined, 

that OBOT had not obtained a vested right to store or handle coal or coke pursuant to section 3.2. 

Exh. C to RJN, pp. 2-3. Thus, the City Council properly exercised its authority as the decisionmaker as to the application of the Coal-Coke Regulations. 

Second, the Terminal property is subject to the public trust. The City administers the land 

in trust for the people of California. Stats. 2005, Ch. 664 [RJN, Exh. F]; see also RJN, Exh. C, 

p. 5. Under the public trust doctrine, "[t]he power of the state to control, regulate and utilize its 

navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath them, when acting within the terms of the trust, 

is absolute." Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d 251, 260 (1971). That power may not be abdicated or 

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 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 - 11 - MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 
delegated to private parties. Pub. Res. Code § 6009.1(c)(13); see City of Berkeley v. Superior 

Court, 26 Ca1.3d 515, 521 (1980). Thus, grants to private parties of rights in public trust lands are 

construed extremely narrowly, in a manner "most favorable to the state." City of Oakland v. 

Oakland Waterfront Company, 118 Cal. 160, 175 (1897). A private holder of an interest in trust 

property (e.g., OBOT) "can claim no vested right to bar recognition of the trust or state action to 

carry out its purposes." Nat. Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419, 437, 440 (1983). 

Therefore, this Court should reject any effort by OBOT to interpret the DA in a manner that 

would provide OBOT an (unexpressed) vested right to preclude the City's actions as trustee. 

b. Section 3.4 Did Not Create the Claimed Vested Right. 

The Complaint suggests, in passing, that section 3.4 of the DA created a vested right for 

the developer to be free from any regulations not existing as of the effective date of the DA. See 

Complaint, in 31, 162. The suggestion is baseless. 

First, the leading clause of section 3.4 states: "Except as expressly provided in this 

Agreement and the City Approvals," then-existing regulations shall govern. RJN, Exh. A. As 

discussed above, section 3.2 expressly provides that City regulations now in effect govern the 

development and use of the project when the DA is silent. Since the DA is silent as to whether 

coal and coke may be stored and handled at the Terminal, the Coal-Coke Regulations apply. 

Second, section 3.4 concerns "Existing City Regulations" that "govern the development of 

the Project." RJN, Exh. A. The Coal-Coke Regulations do not govern the development of the 

Terminal; they govern post-development operations. Indeed, as discussed above, the DA Statute 

explicitly provides that a development agreement may freeze regulations that are set forth in 

general and specific plans, and in zoning, subdivision and building regulations and that govern 

permitted land use, design, density, improvements and construction. Cal. Gov't Code 

§§ 65865.4, 65866. The Coal-Coke Regulations are none of these. 

The chapter of the Oakland Planning Code ("OPC") governing development agreements 

(Chapter 17.138) is consistent with the DA Statute. Section 17.138.015(B) states, in pertinent 

part, that a development agreement may provide "a contractual guarantee that the project covered 

by the agreement may be pursued under the applicable procedural criteria, if any, and other 

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 

- 12 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
zoning regulations, and plans or other documents referred to by any such criteria, as they existed 

when the agreement was approved and notwithstanding any subsequent changes in said zoning 

regulations or documents." RJN, Exh. E. (emphasis added). 

The Ordinance is not a zoning or land use regulation that may be subject to a freeze, as 

provided by the DA Statute and OPC Ch. 17.138. The Ordinance amends the City's Health and 

Safety Code by adding Chapter 8.60 to the Oakland Municipal Code (see RJN, Exh. B, § 3), and 

concerns post-development operations with respect to certain commodities (neither of which is 

covered by the DA). OBOT retains its vested right to develop the Terminal as provided by the 

DA and then-existing zoning and land use laws, pursuant to the DA Statute and OPC Ch. 17.138. 

3. The City Did Not Breach the DA by Extinguishing a Non-Existent Right. 

OBOT relies on section 3.4.2 of the DA to assert the City breached the DA. See, e.g., 

Complaint, IN 30, 31, 163. The reliance is misplaced. Section 3.4.2 is merely an "exception to 

Developer's vested rights" set out elsewhere in the DA. Section 3.4.2 does not purport to create 

any vested right. Therefore, by definition, section 3.4.2 cannot form the basis for OBOT's breach 

claim as set out in the Complaint.6 

Further, the City invoked section 3.4.2, which authorizes the City to eliminate a vested 

right under certain circumstances, as a separate and independent ground for imposing the 

Ordinance. RJN, Exh. C, § 4. Since OBOT never acquired a vested right regarding the subject 

matter of the Coal-Coke Regulations, section 3.4.2 cannot be the basis for a breach claim. 

Based on the foregoing, this Court should grant the City's motion. See, e.g., James L. 

Turkle Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2012 WL 2568208, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012), affd, 602 

F. App'x 360 (9th Cir. 2015) ("Because no amendment can cure these deficiencies without 

contradicting the terms of the governing contracts, dismissal is without leave to amend"); 

Donohue v. Apple, Inc., 871 F.Supp.2d 913, 932 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (motion to dismiss granted due 

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 

6 Moreover, section 3.4.2 creates a contractual right for the City, not for OBOT. Thus, 

OBOT does not have a breach claim. Cf. Kroetch v. BAC Home Loan Servs., 2011 WL 4502350, 

at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011) (breach claim dismissed where the subject provision was for 

defendant's benefit, not plaintiff's). 

26 

27 

28 

- 13 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
to absence of breach of an express term); Oracle Corp. v. DrugLogic, Inc., 807 F.Supp.2d 885, 

901 (N.D. Cal. 2011 (motion to dismiss granted due to lack of breach in light of clear and explicit 

contract terms).7 

C. Assuming Arguendo that the Coal-Coke Regulations Are Development Regulations 

that Are Addressed by the DA, OBOT's State Law Claim Is Time Barred. 

Because the DA can only vest land use and zoning regulations, OBOT's claim that the 

City breached the DA by imposing the Coal-Coke Regulations hinges on the determination 

whether the Ordinance and Resolution are new zoning or land use regulations. As discussed 

above, the breach of contract claim fails because the Coal-Coke Regulations are not land use or 

zoning regulations. However, if the Court accepts OBOT's characterization of the Coal-Coke 

Regulations, OBOT's claim for breach of the DA is time-barred. 

California Government Code section 65009 provides a 90-day limitations period pursuant 

to which a party must file and serve a complaint challenging a local government's land use 

decision. See, e.g., Honig v. San Francisco Planning Dep't, 127 Cal.App.4th 520, 526 (2005). 

The short limitations period "provide[s] certainty for property owners and local governments" 

regarding land use decisions. Id.; Cal. Gov't Code § 65009, subdivs. (a)(3) and (c)(1). To 

determine whether section 65009(c)(1) applies, the courts analyze the gravamen of the claim, not 

the form of the action or the theory upon which relief is sought. Hensler v. City of Glendale 8 

Ca1.4th 1, 22-23 (1994). See also Honig, 127 Cal.App.4th at 528. 

The California Supreme Court's decision in Hensler demonstrates the long reach of this 

rule. A property owner pleaded an inverse condemnation claim based on the City's imposition of 

an ordinance prohibiting development on ridgelines. Hensler, 8 Cal.4th at 7-8. The property 

owner asserted that the five-year statutes of limitations for inverse condemnation claim applied. 

7 Further, the City has not taken action to prohibit OBOT from developing or using the 

Terminal pursuant to the DA. OBOT has not entered into a lease with any party for the 

construction or operation of the Terminal (see Complaint, in 5, 35), and OBOT may continue to 

pursue its development efforts. Meanwhile, if OBOT prevails on its challenge to the legality of 

the Coal-Coke Regulations (e.g., on its preemption claim), the courts will have ruled that the City 

cannot enforce the Ordinance and/or Resolution vis-à-vis the OBOT. But such a result could not 

support a breach of contract claim, either presently or at the time of such a ruling. 

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 

-14- 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

1 6-CV-70 14-VC 

OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 
Id. at 22-23 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 318 and 319). However, because the gravamen of the 

suit was a claim that the "ordinance is invalid on its face or as applied," the Court held that 90-

day statute of limitations provided by the Subdivision Map Act ("SMA") barred the suit. Id. at 

26. In addition, the Court noted that the 90-day limitations period of the SMA was comparable to 

the limitations period of California Government Code section 65009 (which at that time was 120 

days), and that section 65009 applied, in the alternative, to any facial challenge to the ordinance. 

See id. at 22, 28.8 

Thus, assuming arguendo that OBOT may have obtained a vested right not to be subject to 

the Coal-Coke Regulations, OBOT is challenging the legality of a land use decision to which 

California Government Code section 65009(c)(1) applies. Since OBOT filed this action on 

December 7, 2016, more than 90 days after the July 19, 2016 effective date of the Coal-Coke 

Regulations, the action is time-barred. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss the third claim for relief with 

prejudice. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 Dated: January 30, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

17 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 

18 

By: s/ Kevin D. Siegel 

Kevin D. Siegel 

Gregory R. Aker 

Christopher M. Long 

Attorneys for Defendant City of Oakland 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

8 Buena Park Motel Ass'n v. City of Buena Park, 109 Cal.App.4th 302 (2003) is also 

instructive. At issue was a challenge by an association of motels to ordinances that imposed 

length-of-stay restrictions (e.g., prohibiting the rental of a room for 30 days or more). The motels 

alleged that the ordinances were in excess of the city's police powers and were preempted, and 

that the ordinances violated their rights to equal protection and constituted a taking. Id. at 304-05, 

308. The suit was time-barred by California Government Code section 65009(c)(1). Irrespective 

of the plaintiffs' theory, and even though the ordinance governed the operation of motels rather 

than the core right to use the land for motel purposes, section 65009 applied. 

- 15 - 

BURKE, WILLIAMS & 

SORENSEN, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

OAKLAND 

MPA ISO MOT. TO DISMISS 

16-CV-7014-VC OAK #4852-8781-3952 v9 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28