Bayview Hunters Point Residents v. Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Background

The order resolves motions to dismiss in four related cases:

- Bayview Hunters Point Residents, No. 19-cv-01417-JD; - Kevin Abbey, No. 19-cv-07510-JD; - Five Point Holdings, LLC, No. 20-cv-01481-JD; and - CPHP Development, LP, No. 20-cv-01485-JD.

The defendants included Tetra Tech, Inc., Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Dan L. Batrack, and Steven M. Burdick. The order addresses whether California claims were barred by the federal-enclave doctrine, whether claims in the Five Point case were filed too late, and numerous challenges to the Bayview plaintiffs’ corrected fourth amended complaint.

Federal-enclave doctrine

The defendants argued that claims based on California laws enacted after the federal government obtained jurisdiction over Hunters Point Naval Shipyard were barred by the federal-enclave doctrine. The plaintiffs did not dispute that the shipyard is a federal enclave with exclusive federal jurisdiction, but they disputed which parcels were included.

The court held that the existing record did not establish the enclave’s precise geographic or historical boundaries. The plaintiffs’ map was illegible and did not establish that only three parcels were covered. The defendants also failed to provide sufficient evidence identifying the boundaries, the relevant dates when jurisdiction was accepted, or any reservations of state authority. Because these were factual questions not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss, the defendants’ federal-enclave motion was denied in the Bayview, Abbey, and Five Point cases.

The federal-enclave issue in the CPHP Development case was denied as moot because that case had no operative complaint after the court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss. The order likewise terminated as moot another motion concerning the CPHP complaint for the same reason.

Five Point statute-of-limitations motion

In the Five Point case, the defendants sought dismissal of negligence, negligent hiring, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claims. They argued that a two-year limitations period began no later than December 2016.

The court declined to take judicial notice of alleged admissions in a December 2016 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also found that the filing’s statements were speculative and did not clearly contradict the plaintiffs’ allegations that they learned the extent of the alleged fraud in May 2018. Because when the plaintiffs discovered their claims presented factual disputes, the defendants’ statute-of-limitations motion was denied.

Bayview complaint

The defendants moved to dismiss the Bayview plaintiffs’ corrected fourth amended complaint based on 21 separate arguments. The court ruled as follows:

- The argument that the plaintiffs lacked a real dispute sufficient for constitutional standing was denied. - The Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law claims, identified as the first and second causes of action, were dismissed because the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that they lost money or property because of the defendants’ conduct. - The argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the public-nuisance claim was denied. - The plaintiffs’ request to amend the Proposition 65 claim to allege compliance with the 60-day notice requirement was granted. - The argument that the plaintiffs failed to sue indispensable parties, including the Navy and the Environmental Protection Agency, was denied. - The defendants’ argument that the complaint was an impermissible “shotgun pleading” under Rule 8 was denied. - The request to sever the claims because there were too many plaintiffs was denied. - The defendants’ general argument that the complaint did not allege facts supporting each claim was denied. - The argument that the class allegations should be stricken was denied as premature and underdeveloped under the class-action rules. - The defendants’ remaining generalized challenges to twelve causes of action were denied as too general to support dismissal at that stage.

The court also found that the complaint improperly grouped Tetra Tech EC, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc., Dan L. Batrack, and Steven M. Burdick together without giving each defendant fair notice of the claims against that defendant. The corrected fourth amended complaint was dismissed for the stated reasons, and the plaintiffs were given leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed within 30 days and could not add claims or defendants without express permission from the court.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court resolved motions to dismiss based on pleading deficiencies, timeliness disputes not suitable for resolution at that stage, and the need for further factual development. The order did not finally decide the parties’ underlying liability claims.

Judge Donato also warned all parties and counsel that further uncivil conduct or litigation tactics that unnecessarily multiply proceedings could result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions or limits on evidence, issues, or defenses.