07-27-14 TBOC et al v DOI et al Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief, Memorandum of Points and Authorities & Stipulation and Proposed Order re Briefing Schedule

Friends of Drakes Bay Oyster Company:

These documents, were not delivered to me for posting on www.OysterZone.org until today.

Please note, whereas, the retail and cannery will still be closing on 31 July, in the words of Yogi Berra – “It isn’t over until its over!”

Below, please find three recent filings:

1. Brief Filed 07-17-14, a fuller title being Tomales Bay Oyster Co (and others) Plaintiffs, v. USDOI, USNPS, Jonathan Jarvis, NOAA office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Mgmt and Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Mgmt, in the case of “Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (20 pages)
2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Application and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (29 pages)
3. Tomales Bay Oyster Company et al. Plaintiffs v USDOI et al Defendants Case No: 3:14-cv-03246 YGR STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Briefly,

• The First attachment, which I have named 07-17-14 TBOC et al vs DOI, is the “COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF” filed 07-17-14
  • the Introduction brings us through vital points leading to the memorandum decision ordering the closure of DBOC
    • the erroneous position taken by the DOI sweeping away any statute or regulation that might otherwise have applied
    • the arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the law ignoring of procedural constraints that legally applied to this decision and failure to comply with them
    • NOAA-OCRM’s arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the law determination order requiring a consistency certification to the CCC
    • the plaintiff’s loss of critical components of locally harvested oyster supplies causing them to suffer irreparable losses of business and that Defendants’ procedural failures etc., were not adequately analyzed or considered
    • the request the Court
    • hold unlawful and set aside the decision to close DBOC and the NOAA decision requiring a consistency certification
    • enjoin Defendants to engage in a decision making process that complies with the law
    • In the interim, Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief
  • the Parties section, please pay particular attention to item 20, regarding Plaintiff Jeffrey Creque
    • Who qualifications include
      • a PhD in Rangeland Ecology,
      • CA St Bd of Forestry Certified Professional in Rangeland management, a
      • is a founding member and member of the board of ALSA, a citizens group dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment and ecologically sustainable agriculture in Marin County.
    • Who holds that encouragement of the cultivation of shellfish is an ecologically benign and even beneficial food production system fro environmental reasons including
      • shellfish aquaculture, particularly oyster culture, is widely recognized as a carbon neutral or carbon beneficial source of highest quality marine protein
      • shellfish aquaculture is a critical tool for the preservation and restoration of the world’s threatened marine ecosystems.
      • all shellfish cultivated in Drakes Estero are sold locally thereby directly reducing the carbon costs of global food production and transport.
      • ensuring that federal agencies adhere to national policies that call for increased – not decreased – shellfish production
  • the Facts section (pages 8-11, please read these yourself, they speak for themselves)
  • the Causes of Action
    • Count 1: Violation of the National Aquaculture Act and the APA (pg 11-13)
    • Count 2: Violation of the CZMA and the APA (pg 13-15)
    • Count 3: Violation of the APA (pg 15-16)
    • Count 4: Violation of the CZMA and the APA (pg 16-17)
  • Requested Relief (pg 18-19)

 

The Second attachment, which I have named 07-07-14 TBOC et al vs DOI Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff Application and Motion.

• Read this (and all attached documents) in its entirety.

 

The Third Document, which I have named 07-24-14 Stipulation and Proposed Order RE: Briefing Schedule, briefly put stipulates:

1. Plaintiffs withdraw their Application and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
2. Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction before July 31, 2014 and Defendants shall file their Opposition on or before august 26, 2014; Plaintiffs shall file their Reply on or before September 2, 2014
3. Request Motion be heard by the Court on September 9, 2014
4. Plaintiffs’ may seek a preliminary injunction on shortened time, and will discuss adjustments to the briefing schedule accordingly.

 

For the complete documents:

07-17-14 TBOC et al vs DOI et al Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

07-17-14 TBOC et al vs DOI et al Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Plaintiff Application and Motion

07-24-14 Stipulation and Proposed Order re Briefing Schedule

 

Posted by Jane Gyorgy on July 27, 2014

https://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/07-27-14-tboc-et-al-v-doi-et-al-complaint-for-declaratory-injunctive-relief-memorandum-of-points-and-authorities-stipulation-and-proposed-order-re-briefing-schedule/