Drakes Bay Attorneys Files for Reconsideration After Professing Desire to Comply

July 19: "We want to comply."
July 26: "We want to file for reconsideration



Peter Prows, Attorney for

Drakes Bay Oyster Company

July 11 Superior Court Judge Duryee ruled that Drakes Bay Oyster Company must comply with the interim use orders of the Coastal Commission's Cease and Desist Order. The Coastal Commission noted it was looking forward to finally working with Drakes Bay Oyster Company and that it was never its intention to close the farm, only to bring it into compliance. July 18 the Los Angeles Times reported the California Coastal Commission as saying Drakes Bay Oyster Company "has seldom submitted required paperwork on time, despite pledges to do so." However, the Coastal Commission's Lisa Haage went on to say:

"We're hoping that Drakes Bay will now decide to comply," she said, noting the farm's many violations, beginning with its lack of a coastal development permit."Our issue has never been the farm's lease" that allows it to operate in the federal park, she said. "Our issue is to protect coastal resources. They keep saying they want to be cooperative; this is the opportunity to show that."
Haage said the ruling means that the court is compelling the oyster company to comply with the Coastal Commission's edicts.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: We won
The San Francisco Sentinel described the ruling as a "Major Victory for Drakes Bay Oyster Co." On July 19, Drakes Bay Oyster Company's Facebook sites proclaimed a "Victory for Drakes Bay Oyster Co." and posted a link to the Sentinel article.

And we'll comply
July 18: An article in the Los Angeles times quoted DBOC attorney Peter Prows as saying it was "a big win for us." He continues,  "In our view, we've already submitted the proper plans," Prows said. "I don't see this as a big deal."

July 19: An article on the San Anselmo-Fairfax Patch site by Bay City News writes of attorney Prows' describing how they will address the ruling: The company hopes to build an onshore facility to wash the Didemnum off the shellfish, Prows said.

July 19: The Mercury News reports attorney Prows saying,  "We want to comply and have been complying," Prows said, noting the oyster company has developed several plans to address the commission's concerns. "We are happy to keep working with the commission."

July 19: The Contra Costa Times reported attorney Prows as saying: "We want to comply and have been complying," Prows said, noting the oyster company has developed several plans to address the commission's concerns. "We are happy to keep working with the commission."

Never mind. We weren't ready and want a do-over.
After all of attorney Prows' pledges to comply and work with the Coastal Commission, on July 26 Drakes Bay Oyster Company filed a motion for reconsideration. In that motion they claim they were not prepared for the hearing. It was reported:

they were unable to respond to what they call false statements made by commission lawyers that led to Judge Duryee’s ruling because they were prepared to argue whether or not a stay on the case should be granted, not on the merits of the case itself. Point Reyes Light, August 1

Law school 101
Don't go into a hearing unprepared. Whether Judge Duryee will grant a do-over and allow Drakes Bay Oyster Company's attorneys to get their papers in on time remains to be seen.