San Francisco Herring Association v. United States Department of the Interior et al

Filing 65

NOTICE TO CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS; INVITING VIEWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON ISSUES PRESENTED IN THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 5, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 13-cv-01750-JST

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, et al.,

NOTICE TO CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS;
INVITING VIEWS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ON ISSUES PRESENTED
IN THIS CASE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17

TO KAMALA HARRIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA:
By this Order, the Court hereby invites the State of California to provide its views on
certain issues presented in the above-captioned case, as set forth below.
Plaintiff San Francisco Herring Association (“Plaintiff”) has brought this action against

18

Defendants the United States Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, the

19

United States National Park Service (“N.P.S.”), N.P.S. Director Jonathan Jarvis, and Golden Gate

20

National Recreation Area General Superintendent Frank Dean (collectively, “Defendants”). First

21

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 17. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment

22

on the issue of whether the Department of the Interior has jurisdiction to prohibit commercial

23

fishing within the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay that are within the boundaries of the

24

Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue

25

of Jurisdiction (“Defendants’ Motion”), ECF No 31; Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion

26

for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Opp./Cross-

27

Motion”), ECF No. 31.

28

On December 12, 2013, the Court will hold a hearing on the cross-motions, at which it will

1

consider only issues which go to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. If the Court determines

2

that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, it is likely to decide some or all of the

3

following issues:

4

1.

Whether the State of California holds title to some or all of the navigable waters of

5

San Francisco Bay within the boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation

6

Area, and whether the United States has acquired any property interest in those

7

waters. See Plaintiff’s Opp./Cross-Motion 12:1-13:9; Plaintiff’s Reply in

8

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Reply”)
9:20-10:8, ECF No. 56.

9
2.

10

Department of the Interior has the statutory authority to prohibit commercial

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

If the State of California does hold title to such waters, whether the United States

fishing in the waters in which the State of California holds title. See Defendants’

12

Motion 11:11-15:10; Plaintiff’s Opp./Cross-Motion 23:15-34:19; Defendants’

13

Reply/Opp. 5:11-11:25, 13:1-27:15.
14
3.

Whether the State of California holds title to some or all of the submerged land

15
beneath the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay that are within the boundaries
16

of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and whether the United States has

17

acquired any property interest in such submerged lands. See Defendants’ Motion

18

6:17-26, 17:6-19:9, Plaintiff’s Opp./Cross Motion 13:10-20:3; Defendants’

19

Reply/Opp. 12:1-27, 28:8-35:4; Plaintiff’s Reply 10:9-11:28.

20

4.

If the State of California holds title to those submerged lands, whether the United

21

States Department of the Interior has the statutory authority to prohibit commercial

22

fishing in such waters above such submerged land in which the State of California

23

holds title. See Defendants’ Motion 15:11-17:7; Plaintiff’s Reply 12:1-13:15.

24

The Court invites the State of California to provide its views on these questions. If the

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

State of California intends to provide its views, it shall notify the Court and the parties by

2

December 13, 2013, and shall file a brief of no longer than 30 pages not later than January 10,

3

2014.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
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
3