Opinion ID: 4536539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: OBOT Files Lawsuit

Text: OBOT filed a lawsuit against the City in federal court for a claimed breach of contract. It alleged that the City violated Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 of the Development Agreement when it applied the new Ordinance to the Project Site. OBOT alleged that the City breached the Development Agreement because the City’s determination was not based on “substantial evidence” that the handling and storage of coal at bulk material facilities within the City posed a substantially dangerous threat to the health or safety of community members. The district court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and scheduled a bench trial on the breach of contract claim to assess whether there was “substantial evidence” in the record before the City supporting its determination. The district court conducted a three-day bench trial beginning on January 16, 2018. At trial, OBOT was permitted to present lengthy extra-record testimony from three experts. These experts not only offered critiques of the City’s methods, evidence, and conclusions, but were also allowed to address the relevance and significance of new extra-record exhibits. Before, during, and after trial, the City objected to the district court admitting and considering extra-record evidence introduced by OBOT at trial. The City argued that this evidence would enable OBOT to improperly contradict the City’s administrative record with information that the Council had no opportunity to review. The City raised this issue in its pre-trial brief, its pre-trial objection, lodged a continuing objection at the outset of trial, and renewed the objection after trial. On May 15, 2018, the district court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The court invalidated the Resolution as a breach of the Development Agreement, OBOT V. CITY OF OAKLAND 43 concluding that “the record before the City Council [did] not contain enough evidence to support the City Council’s conclusion that the proposed coal operations would pose a substantial danger to people in Oakland.” Although the court acknowledged that the City’s decision “may only be justified on the basis of evidence that was before the City Council at the time the decision was made,” it significantly relied on extra-record evidence produced by OBOT in rendering its decision. The court’s opinion focused on OBOT’s critiques of the ESA report and largely did not address other evidence amassed and reviewed by the City.