Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Guidiville Rancheria of California v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 24, 2014

THE GUIDIVILLE RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA, AND UPSTREAM POINT MOLATE LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SALLY JEWELL, et al., And THE CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendants. And Counterclaims.

ORDER DENYING: (1) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND (2) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Upstream Point Molate, LLC ("Upstream"). The first is for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court's December 12, 2013 Order Granting City of Richmond's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Dkt. No. 219; see also Dkt. No. 212, "Order Granting JOP".) The second is a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to cure deficiencies in the complaint that were the basis for that Order. (Dkt. No. 221.)

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, as well as the matters judicially noticeable, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motions.

I. BACKGROUND

The procedural and factual background of this case is extensive and has been set forth in prior orders and the Court presume familiarity. ( See, e.g., Order Granting JOP at 2-9.) The Court previously granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant City of Richmond on Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and specific performance as stated in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. The Court did not grant leave to amend, but instead dismissed the claims and found that only Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief against the City survived the motion. (Order Granting JOP at 21.)

Plaintiff now seeks to file a Fourth Amended Complaint ("Proposed 4thAC") to allege additional facts regarding the City's alleged improper exercise of its discretion and failure to negotiate in good faith for an alternative to the rejected casino project. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to add allegations regarding:

(1) statements during the settlement negotiations of the CESP I litigation which purportedly show that the purpose of entering into the settlement agreement was to ensure compliance with CEQA only, not to provide the City's discretion regarding the ultimate approval of a project at Point Molate. (Proposed 4thAC, Dkt. No. 221-1, at ¶¶ 65-72);

(2) an order by a state court judge, denying the application of Chevron for a temporary restraining order to block the City from entering into the Land Development Agreement ("LDA"), offered to show that the federal government's intent was to transfer the property to the City for economic development purposes ( Id. at ¶¶ 53 & 54);

(3) additional facts to show that the City failed to negotiate in good faith for an alternate proposal pursuant to Section 2.8 of the LDA ( Id. at ¶¶ 84-116);

(4) numerous other projects where the City issued a statement of overriding considerations or a negative declaration to find that the project should be approved under CEQA despite adverse environmental findings, in contrast to its refusal to approve Upstream's development plans for Point Molate ( Id. at ¶¶ 48-55, 73 & 119-121); and

(5) allegations that the City's exercise of discretion under CEQA was "premature" and a pretext, since it had decided, before the EIR was certified, that it would not allow a casino project ( Id. at ¶¶ 103, 117 & 118).

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-9 sets forth the requirements for seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration. No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of court. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Under Local Rule 7-9(b), a moving party seeking reconsideration must show specifically:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.