Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland
Decision Date | 17 September 2020 |
Docket Number | A157330 |
Citation | 54 Cal.App.5th 738,269 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 |
Parties | OAKLAND BULK AND OVERSIZED TERMINAL, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Benjamin G. Shatz, Los Angeles, Barry W. Lee, Christopher L. Wanger, Ana G. Guardado, San Francisco; for Plaintiffs and Respondents Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC et al.
Altshuler Berzon, James M. Finberg ; Oakland City Attorney, Barbara J. Parker, Oakland, Maria S. Bee, Jamilah A. Jefferson, for Defendant and Appellant City of Oakland
The City of Oakland (City) entered into a series of agreements with Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC (OBOT) for the development of the land at the site of the former Oakland Army Base. It was to be a huge project, to include a bulk commodity shipping terminal for transfer of commodities, including coal, to foreign countries. When the subject of coal became public, it activated interest groups, ultimately leading to a City ordinance banning coal handling and storage in the City and a resolution applying the ordinance to the terminal. OBOT filed suit in federal court, which ruled for OBOT, holding that the resolution was a breach of the City's agreement with OBOT, and enjoining the City from relying on the resolution. Despite that ruling, friction between OBOT and the City continued.
OBOT (along with an affiliate) filed suit against the City, alleging 12 causes of action, including three for breach of contract and seven for tort. The City filed a demurrer and a standard motion to strike, followed weeks later by a special motion to strike (SLAPP motion) that sought to strike "in part" the complaint—a motion that thus recognized the case would proceed. The court advanced the SLAPP motion so it came on for hearing with the other two matters, which hearing began with the court making early mention of the SLAPP motion, observing that it "might be premature." The hearing dealt primarily with the demurrer, which the trial court had addressed in a tentative ruling, overruling it in most part, and sustaining it in part with leave to amend. Days later, the trial court entered an order on the SLAPP motion, that it was "denied without prejudice," going on to describe it as "premature" in light of the amended complaint to come. The City did not wait for the amended complaint, and appealed.
The City's appeal argues at length that the trial court erred in allowing amendment, but then goes on to ask us to decide the SLAPP motion. We do that, and decide that it has no merit, that plaintiffs’ complaint is not based on protected activity. We thus remand with instructions to the trial court to enter an order denying the SLAPP motion, with some observations about the state of anti-SLAPP law in those instances where the case will proceed—and whether something should be done about it.
Beginning in 2010, the City entered into the first of a series of agreements with OBOT governing the development of the land at the site of the former Oakland Army Base in general, and in particular the "West Gateway" portion of the base. The purpose was to build a bulk commodity shipping terminal and associated railway improvements (terminal), which was envisioned as a facility for unloading bulk goods from railcars and transferring those goods onto ships for export to other countries. The agreements came to include a lease disposition and development agreement (LDDA), a development agreement (development agreement), and ultimately a ground lease (lease) under which OBOT ground-leased the West Gateway property and the existing rail right of way (rail R/O/W). Some pertinent terms of the documents will be described as appropriate below. Suffice to say here that the agreements granted OBOT the right to develop, build, and operate the terminal, according to specific required timeframes, on a parcel of land adjacent to San Francisco Bay called the West Gateway.
As part of the development process—and in furtherance of its obligations under the agreements—OBOT began to search for a company to construct and operate the terminal, and in the spring of 2014 began negotiations with Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS). The negotiations were successful, and in November 2014, OBOT entered into an exclusive negotiation agreement and sublease option (sublease option) under which TLS was granted an exclusive option to sublease and operate the terminal for 66 years.
According to OBOT, at all relevant times it communicated to the City the development plans for the West Gateway, and the City was aware that coal (and petcoke) were bulk commodities to be transported through the terminal.
Indeed, OBOT asserts it would not have agreed to develop the project, committing tens of millions of dollars to do so, if coal were excluded from the commodities that could be shipped.
But whatever the City knew, in 2014, shortly after OBOT began negotiations with TLS, word spread that coal was one of the commodities to be handled at the terminal. This in turn generated significant public concern, and interest groups began focusing on the matter. This led to a June 2014 resolution expressing the City's general opposition to transporting fossil fuels through the City, and ultimately to the 2016 enactment of an ordinance banning coal handling and storage in the City (ordinance) and a resolution applying the ordinance to the terminal (resolution).1
In December 2016, OBOT filed a lawsuit in federal court: Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (N.D. Cal. 2018) 321 F.Supp.3d 986 (federal action). The federal action asserted that the City breached the development agreement by applying the coal ban to the terminal. Following a court trial, on May 15, 2018, the district court judge issued his findings of fact and conclusions, framing the question at issue as "whether the record before the City Council when it made this decision [adopting the resolution] contained substantial evidence that the proposed coal operations would pose a substantial health or safety danger." And he answered "no," holding as follows: ( Id. at pp. 988–989.)
In light of the above, the district court held that ( Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, supra , 321 F.Supp.3d at pp. 1010–1011.)
On May 15, the district court entered judgment for OBOT, enjoining the City from applying the Ordinance to OBOT or restricting future coal operations to the terminal.2
Despite this ruling, the differences between the parties continued.
The Lease defines "Force Majeure" as
On March 11, 2016, OBOT provided a notice of force majeure delay that was caused by the City's inability to inform OBOT of the construction codes and standards and applicable city regulations that apply to the premises and project improvements, as those terms are defined in the lease and the development agreement. The notice claimed the City admitted it was unable to provide the foundational information set forth in the applicable codes and standards and applicable regulations as required under section 3.4.4 of the development agreement, and OBOT was thus prevented from continuing work on the design of the project improvements.
According to OBOT, due to the City's act of force majeure, OBOT was entitled to an extension of over two years of the commencement date as defined in the lease, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Truck Ins. Exch. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
...statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.5 In the same vein, we find Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 738, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 inapposite. In that case, the trial court sustained a demurrer with leave to amend and then deferred......
-
Trinity Risk Mgmt., LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc.
...argument on October 27, 2020, cross-complainants cited to and relied on new authority— Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 738, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 ( OBOT )—that they contend was not available in time to be included in their briefs on appeal.2 T......
-
Cordoba Corp. v. City of Indus.
...1057, 1067–1068, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 130, 393 P.3d 905 [denial of tenure not protected]; Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 738, 755–756, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 170 [city refusing to issue permits, withholding contractual benefits, and stonewalling not pr......
-
Kovalenko v. Kirkland & Ellis LLP
... ... 2017); see also Jordan-Benel v. Universal City ... Studios, Inc. , 859 F.3d 1184, 1190 ... See ... Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of ... ...