Facts

The San Francisco Herring Association, or SFHA, filed a complaint against the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Sally Jewel as Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. National Park Service, Jonathan Jarvis as the Director of the National Park Service and Frank Dean as the General Superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in connection with commercial fishing in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

SFHA's membership consisted of predominantly active commercial herring fishermen made up of small independent business owner/operators.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Only persons with a valid permit can fish for herring in the San Francisco Bay area. Moreover, only a limited amount of fish can be harvested during a particular season, which was set by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, fka California's Fish and Game Commission. The limitations were pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

In November 2011, defendants informed fishermen that the National Park Service would prohibit fishing in the waters abutting the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The National Park Service claimed jurisdiction over the area. Meanwhile, the fishermen have been commercially fishing for herring in those waters since the mid-1970's.

The SFHA contended that defendants arbitrarily and unlawfully prohibited commercial fishing in the waters abutting the Golden Gate National Recreation Area during the 2011/2012 and the 2012/2013 seasons. As a result, the commercial herring fishermen and their buyers suffered significant financial losses. Consequently, the prohibition also disrupted the resource management of the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and harmed the Bay's herring resource.

SFHA contended that defendants' prohibition was unlawful, arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. SFHA also contended that defendants were estopped from prohibiting commercial fishery in the disputed waters. As such, SFHA asserted causes of action for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, estoppel, and sought declaratory as well as permanent injunctive relief.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the estoppel cause of action, which was unopposed.

Result

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar denied SFHA's motion for a preliminary injunction.