Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Tomales Bay Oyster Files Appeal

Is suing one agency while having been found

in violation of regulations by another

really a smart thing to do? 

As expected, Tomales Bay Oyster Company's attorney has appealed the ruling against a preliminary injunction to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. [see MarinIJ for article] Despite attorney Stuart Gross, having been told his suit bordered on "frivolous" with claims having "no merit," he still chose to appeal. (see earlier post here) And in spite of Tomales Bay Oyster Company being in violation of California Coastal Act regulations, they agreed.

Tomales Bay Oyster's abandoned tidelands.

Why clean up and grow when you can just buy?

(from The Coastodian.org)

Despite and in spite of
He chose to appeal, despite Tomales Bay Oyster Company having tidelands it could have been growing oysters on but did not; despite Tomales Bay Oyster Company having told the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that it expected to harvest an additional 3 million oysters in 2015, having planted extra in anticipation of Drakes Bay Oyster's closing; despite Dixon Marine (a party to the suit) not disclosing the Living Shorelines Project reported "the different “baycrete” [artificial] elements appear to be performing more or less equally well [as DBOC shell]"; despite restaurants' claiming "harm" without providing any proof. And, in spite of Tomales Bay Oyster Company's having an open violation with the California Coastal Commission, they agreed.

Free to choose
Tomales Bay Oyster Company's choice to pursue a frivolous lawsuit is one they are free to do. But to do so while they are in the middle of trying to resolve violations of county and coastal regulations carries a business risk.

(From August 20, 2014 CCC letter referencing

violation file number V-7-14-001)