San Francisco Herring Association v. United States Department of the Interior et al
Filing
146
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 140 Administrative Motion Requesting that the Court Comply with the Mandate by Dismissing Case Without Prejudice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN FRANCISCO HERRING
ASSOCIATION,
7
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
Re: ECF No. 140
10
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 13-cv-01750-JST
Defendants.
12
13
Before the Court is Plaintiff‟s motion requesting dismissal without prejudice and leave to
14
15
file a motion for leave to amend. ECF No. 140. The Court will grant Plaintiff‟s motion.
16
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff San Francisco Herring Association (“Plaintiff” or “SFHA”) appealed this Court‟s
17
18
order granting Defendants‟ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 127.1 On March 17, 2017,
19
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum opinion
20
concluding that this Court “lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the SFHA‟s complaint” because
21
Plaintiff failed to “establish that it is challenging some final agency action.” ECF No. 136 at 2-4.
22
The court also held that it “need not consider the doctrine of exhaustion, because the SFHA has
23
not identified any final agency action over which we have jurisdiction,” id. at 4, and further
24
concluded that, “[b]ecause the SFHA does not challenge a final agency action, we need not
25
1
26
27
28
Defendants are the United States Department of the Interior; Ryan Zinke, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the Interior; National Park Service; Michael T. Reynolds, in his official capacity as
Acting Director of the National Park Service; and Cicely Muldoon, in her official capacity as
Acting General Superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Secretary Zinke,
Acting Director Reynolds, and Acting General Superintendent Muldoon are substituted for their
respective predecessors in office pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
1
consider whether the case is ripe,” id. at 5. The court remanded the case “with instructions to
2
DISMISS for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. On July 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit denied
3
Plaintiff‟s petition for panel rehearing and petition for panel rehearing en banc, ECF No. 139, and
4
the mandate issued on July 20, 2017, ECF No. 141.
5
Plaintiff filed an administrative motion requesting that the Court dismiss this case without
6
prejudice and allow Plaintiff an opportunity to move for leave to amend the complaint. ECF No.
7
140. The Court specially set a briefing schedule because, “[a]lthough Plaintiff characterized the
8
filing as an administrative motion under Local Rule 7-11, the motion requests substantive relief.”
9
ECF No. 143. Defendants filed a timely opposition, ECF No. 144, and Plaintiff filed a timely
reply, ECF No. 145.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
When a case is remanded by the appellate court, the district court must “execute the terms
12
13
of a mandate” but is “free as to anything not foreclosed by the mandate, and, under certain
14
circumstances, an order issued after remand may deviate from the mandate if it is not counter to
15
the spirit of the circuit court‟s decision.” United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (9th
16
Cir. 2000) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “[I]n construing a
17
mandate, the lower court may consider the opinion the mandate purports to enforce as well as the
18
procedural posture and substantive law from which it arises. . . . [T]he ultimate task is to
19
distinguish matters that have been decided on appeal, and are therefore beyond the jurisdiction of
20
the lower court, from matters that have not.” Id. at 1093 (citing In re Sanford Fork & Tool, 160
21
U.S. 247, 266 (1895)).
22
III.
23
DISCUSSION
The Ninth Circuit remanded this case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter
24
jurisdiction but was silent as to whether dismissal should be with or without leave to amend. The
25
opinion includes a statement that this Court “lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the SFHA’s
26
complaint,” ECF No. 136 at 2 (emphasis added), but it elsewhere states that, “the SFHA has not
27
identified any final agency action over which we have jurisdiction,” id. at 4, and “the SFHA does
28
not challenge a final agency action,” id. at 5. Defendants argue that these latter statements,
2
1
combined with the quantity of briefing on appeal and discussion at oral argument about whether
2
Plaintiff was challenging a final agency action, demonstrate that “[t]he Circuit determined that
3
SFHA‟s claim was factually deficient and therefore incurable on this record.” ECF No. 144 at 25.
4
But Defendants point to nothing in the record demonstrating that the Ninth Circuit considered
5
whether Plaintiff could allege facts constituting a final agency action, as opposed to whether
6
Plaintiff actually did allege such facts.
7
Likewise, the record does not establish that Plaintiff presented to the Ninth Circuit the
8
question of whether leave to amend should be granted. Matter of Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d
9
1334 (9th Cir. 1984), on which Defendants rely, is therefore distinguishable. In that case, the
Ninth Circuit remanded with instructions for the district court “to remand the case to the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
bankruptcy court for the purpose of determining the proper interpretation of „interest earned‟” as
12
used in the settlement agreement. Id. at 1336. “Bancorp‟s Trustee petitioned [the Ninth Circuit]
13
for rehearing or in the alternative for clarification of the opinion to advise the bankruptcy court to
14
allow the Trustee to amend his pleadings to assert mutual mistake or fraud in the drafting of the
15
term „interest earned‟ in the Settlement Agreement.” Id. The court denied that petition. Id. The
16
Trustee nonetheless sought and was granted leave to amend by the bankruptcy court. Id. The
17
Ninth Circuit found error in the bankruptcy court‟s decision because it was inconsistent with the
18
mandate, “particularly in light of our denial of the Trustee‟s petition for rehearing or clarification.”
19
Id. at 1337-38. Here, by contrast, Plaintiff‟s petition for rehearing asserted that its complaint
20
alleged a final agency action, and Plaintiff at no time requested leave to amend or remand with
21
instructions to grant leave to amend. 9th Cir. Case No. 15-16214, ECF No. 61 at 3-6.
22
Accordingly, this Court cannot say that the propriety of granting leave to amend was
23
“decided on appeal.” Kellington, 217 F.3d at 1093. Plaintiff might well be unable to allege
24
sufficient facts giving rise to subject matter jurisdiction, but the Court will give Plaintiff an
25
opportunity to make its case by proposing specific amendments to the complaint in a motion for
26
leave to amend. Defendants remain free to argue in opposition to Plaintiff‟s motion that the
27
proposed amendments are foreclosed on the merits by the Ninth Circuit‟s opinion or that leave to
28
amend is otherwise futile.
3
1
CONCLUSION
2
Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit‟s instruction, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter
3
jurisdiction. Dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff‟s filing a motion for leave to amend. Any
4
such motion must be filed on or before November 21, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. If Plaintiff does not file a
5
timely motion, the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 25, 2017
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?