UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 14, 2008
MANCHESTER PACIFIC GATEWAY LLC, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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").*fn1 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 (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.