Center for Biological Diversity et al vs California Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection et al

Case Number

25CV02244

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 09/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Bifurcation

Tentative Ruling

(1)       For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of petitioners and plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Wishtoyo Foundation (case No. 25CV02244) to bifurcate trial of this action is denied.

(2)       For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of petitioners and plaintiffs Environmental Defense Center, Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara County Action Network, Sierra Club, and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (case No. 25CV02247) to bifurcate trial of this action is denied.

(3)       As discussed herein, the parties shall meet and confer as to the desirability of consolidation of these actions and report to the court the results of such discussions at the next case management conference.

These are two related cases involving the same underlying incidents and activity. The petitioners and plaintiffs in their respective actions make essentially the same motions, and on the same grounds, to bifurcate trial; defendants oppose both motions on essentially the same grounds. The court will therefore address both motions together.

Documents filed by petitioners and plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Wishtoyo Foundation (case No. 25CV02244) will be identified by the prefix, and these parties will be collectively referred to as, “CBD”; documents filed by petitioners and plaintiffs Environmental Defense Center, Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara County Action Network, Sierra Club, and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (case No. 25CV02247) will be identified by the prefix, and these parties collectively referred to as, “EDC.” Petitioners and plaintiffs will collectively be referred to as “petitioners”; respondents and defendants will be collectively referred to as “respondents”; a petition and complaint will be referred to simply as a “petition.” Respondents Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, by and through the Office of the State Fire Marshal, an agency of the State of California, and Daniel Berlant, in his official capacity as State Fire Marshal will be collectively referred to as “OSFM.” Real parties in interest Sable Offshore Corp., and Pacific Pipeline Company will be collectively referred to as “Sable.”

Background:

As alleged in the petitioners’ respective petitions:

These actions involve two oil pipelines connected to three offshore platforms known as the Santa Ynez Unit. (CBD Petition, ¶¶ 33, 34; EDC Petition, ¶ 38, 39.) The two oil pipelines at issue (collectively, the Las Flores Pipelines) consist of Las Flores Pipeline CA-324 (Line 324) and Las Flores Pipeline CA-325 (Line 325). (CBD Petition, ¶¶ 39, 40; EDC Petition, ¶ 41.) Prior to 2015, when owned by Plains Pipeline, L.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline (collectively, Plains), Line 324 was known as Line 901 and Line 325 was known as Line 903. (CBD Petition, ¶ 49; EDC Petition, ¶ 41, 68.)

The Las Flores Pipelines were constructed and operated following approval by Santa Barbara County in 1986. (CBD Petition, ¶ 35; EDC Petition, ¶ 54.) This approval relied upon an environmental impact report (EIR) drafted in 1984 and finalized in 1985. (CBD Petition, ¶ 35; EDC Petition, ¶ 54 & fn. 1.)

In 2015, Line 324 (formerly Line 901) ruptured causing a serious oil spill (Refugio Oil Spill). (CBD Petition, ¶¶ 50-51; EDC Petition, ¶¶ 69-70.) The Las Flores Pipelines were consequently shut down at that time. (CBD Petition, ¶ 52; EDC Petition, ¶ 82.)

In March 2020, the United States and the State of California sued Plains based upon damages from the Refugio Oil Spill in United States v. Plains All American Pipeline, United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 2:20-cv-02415 (the Federal Action). (CBD Petition, ¶ 59; EDC Petition, ¶ 85.) The Federal Action was settled by a consent decree (Federal Consent Decree) entered by the court. (CBD Petition, ¶¶ 59-62; EDC Petition, ¶¶ 85-88 & fn. 3 [the Federal Consent Decree].)

The Federal Consent Decree required the operator to “remediate all internal or external metal loss anomalies that have an ILI reported depth of 40 [percent] or greater wall loss, within one year of discovery.” (CBD Petition, ¶ 60.) The Federal Consent Decree also expressly required that prior to any restart, the operator “shall apply for a State Waiver through [OSFM] for the limited effectiveness of cathodic protection” and that it “must receive a State Waiver from [OSFM] prior to restarting.” (CBD Petition, ¶ 61.) The Federal Consent Decree stated that OSFM has the discretion to require additional terms and conditions if it grants any request for a State Waiver. (CBD Petition, ¶ 62.)

In 2024, Sable acquired the Santa Ynez Unit and the Las Flores Pipelines. (CBD Petition, ¶ 64-65; EDC Petition, ¶ 99.)

In April 2024, Sable submitted State Waiver applications to OSFM for Lines 324 and 325. (EDC Petition, ¶ 110 & exhibit B.)

On September 24, 2024, CBD set a letter to OSFM stating that the OSFM had a duty to conduct an analysis and provide opportunities for meaningful public participation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). (CBD Petition, ¶ 68.)

On September 27, 2024, EDC sent a letter to OSFM renewing their March 2024 request for a public process. (EDC Petition, ¶ 112.) EDC also stated that operating the Las Flores Pipeline System without effective cathodic protection was neither anticipated nor reviewed in the 1985 EIR or any project approval, and the potential impacts of doing so have never been fully considered. (Id. & exhibit C.) OSFM never responded to the letter. (EDC Petition, ¶ 112.)

On December 17, 2024, OSFM issued State Waivers for Lines 324 and 325 with conditions. (EDC Petition, ¶ 115; CBD Petition, ¶ 71.) OSFM did not offer any sort of public process in advance of its decision. (EDC Petition, ¶ 115.)

On February 11, 2025, the United States Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) sent a letter to OSFM indicating that it would not object to the OSFM’s issuance of the State Waivers. (EDC Petition, ¶ 117.)

On April 15, 2025, CBD filed their verified petition (case No. 25CV02244) seeking writ and injunctive relief asserting three causes of action: (1) violation of federal pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. § 60118); (2) violation of state pipeline safety laws (Gov. Code, § 51011); and (3) violations of CEQA.

Also on April 15, 2025, EDC filed their verified petition (case No. 25CV02247) seeking writ, injunctive, and declaratory relief asserting eight causes of action: (1) violation of the federal Pipeline Safety Act (FPSA, 49 U.S.C. § 60118(d))—failure to provide a public process; (2) violation of the FPSA (49 U.S.C. § 60118(d))—failure to provide a statement of reasons; (3) declaratory relief—state waiver procedures required under the FPSA (49 U.S.C. § 60118(d)); (4) abuse of discretion under the FPSA (49 U.S.C. § 60118(d)); (5) violation of the Elder California Pipeline Safety Act of 1981 (CPSA, Gov. Code, § 51011, subd. (c)); (6) abuse of discretion under the CPSA (Gov. Code, § 51011, subd. (b)); (7) declaratory relief—standards and procedures required under the CPSA (Gov. Code, § 51011, subds. (b), (c)); and (8) CEQA—failure to prepare a subsequent EIR (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166).

On July 8, 2025, Sable filed their demurrers and their motions to strike as to the CBD Petition and EDC Petition. These demurrers and motions to strike were originally set for this hearing date of September 19.

On August 27, 2025, CBD and EDC filed motions in their respective cases to bifurcate what they describe as their “procedural claims” from their “substantive claims.”

CBD identifies their procedural claims as:

“(1) OSFM violated sections 60118(c)(1)(B), (d) of the federal Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. section 60101, et seq. (the ‘FPSA’), by failing to provide public notice and a hearing (First Cause of Action, Petition at ¶¶ 115, 117);

“(2) OSFM violated sections 60118(c)(3), (d) of the FPSA by failing to provide an order containing the reasons for granting the Waivers (First Cause of Action, Petition at ¶¶ 115, 118);

“(3) OSFM violated sections 60118(d) of the FPSA by failing to conduct environmental review before granting the Waivers (First Cause of Action, Petition at ¶¶ 115, 119);

“(4) OSFM violated section 51011(c) of California’s Elder Pipeline Safety Act, Gov. Code section 51010, et seq. (the ‘CPSA’), by failing to include a discussion of those factors that OSFM considered significant to the granting of the Waivers (Second Cause of Action, Petition at ¶¶ 123-124); and

“(5) OSFM violated CEQA, Pub. Resources Code § 2100, et seq., by failing to prepare an environmental document for the Project and include the public in the decisionmaking process (Third Cause of Action).” (CBD Motion, at p. 4.)

EDC similarly identifies their procedural claims as:

“First Cause of Action: OSFM failed to provide a public process, including adequate public notice and a public hearing, as required by the federal Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. section 60101 et seq. (the ‘FPSA’).

“Second Cause of Action: OSFM failed to provide a statement of reasons in its Waiver approvals, as required by the FPSA.

“Third Cause of Action: Declaratory relief regarding the scope of OSFM’s procedural obligations under the FPSA.

“Fifth Cause of Action: OSFM failed to provide a discussion of significant factors in its Waiver approvals, as required by California’s Elder Pipeline Safety Act, Gov. Code section 51010 et seq. (the ‘CPSA’).

“Sixth Cause of Action: Declaratory relief regarding the scope of OSFM’s procedural obligations under the CPSA.

“Eighth Cause of Action: OSFM failed to prepare a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as required by CEQA.” (EDC Motion, at p. 4.)

CBD identifies their substantive claims as:

“(1) OSFM violated sections 60118(c)(1)(A), (d) of the FPSA by failing to demonstrate that the Waivers are ‘not inconsistent with pipeline safety’ (First Cause of Action, Petition at ¶¶ 115, 116); and

“(2) OSFM violated section 51011(b) of the CPSA by failing to demonstrate that in issuing the State Waivers, the ‘risk to public safety is slight and the probability of injury or damage remote’ (Second Cause of Action, Petition at ¶ 122.)” (CBD Motion, at p. 5.)

EDC similarly identifies their substantive claims as:

“Fourth Cause of Action: OSFM abused its discretion in granting the Waivers, in part because the OSFM failed to establish, for each Waiver, that ‘the waiver is not inconsistent with pipeline safety’—the relevant legal standard under the FPSA. (49 U.S.C. § 60118(c)(1)(A), (d).)

 

“Sixth Cause of Action: OSFM abused its discretion in granting the Waivers, in part because the OSFM failed to establish, for each Waiver, that ‘the risk to public safety is slight and the probability of injury or damage remote’—the relevant legal standard under the CPSA. (Gov. Code § 51011(b).)” (EDC Motion, at p. 5.)

CBD and EDC argue that the procedural claims are straightforward in that they require petitioners to establish only that OSFM failed to comply with its procedural mandates and that the only relevant facts are whether OSFM did or did not do so. The substantive claims, by contrast, require fact and time-intensive inquires as to whether OSFM adequately demonstrated that the State Waivers protect public and pipeline safety. CBD and EDC seek orders to resolve the procedural claims first. If CBD and EDC are able to succeed on their procedural claims, the substantive claims need not be resolved by the court now but would await further administrative proceedings which may make the substantive claims moot.

Sable opposes both motions. Sable argues that all claims, including both procedural and substantive claims, are so entangled with each other that bifurcation would not likely result in judicial efficiency for the court or for the litigants.

On September 8, 2025, Sable filed notices withdrawing their demurrers and motions to strike. The demurrers and motions to strike accordingly were taken off calendar.

On September 12, 2025, OSFM filed notices that OSFM takes no position with respect to the petitioners’ motions to bifurcate.

Analysis:

“The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)

“The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Sections 597 and 597.5.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.)

Under sections 598 and 1048, the court has discretion to bifurcate actions to accomplish the statutory purposes of expedition and economy. (See Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 833.)

A lengthy discourse on the nature of the petitioners’ claims is neither necessary nor helpful here. While the petitioners’ distinction between procedural and substantive claims is useful for some purposes, all of the claims are closely connected to a common set of facts. In short, the procedural claims do not exist in a vacuum. Among other things, the court’s understanding of the factual basis for the substantive claims informs the court so as to assist in the determination of the procedural claims. In these circumstances, limiting a first phase of trial to one set of claims has the potential to exclude evidence or argument useful, and perhaps necessary, to the adjudication of the procedural issues.

Based upon the present procedural posture of the case and the arguments of the parties, the court does not find that bifurcation is likely to promote expeditious or efficient adjudication. Accordingly, the court will deny the motions to bifurcate.

At the same time, the petitioners mention the potential of consolidation of case No. 25CV02244 with case No. 25CV02247. This issue is not now before the court. However, as these motions demonstrate, the overlap in facts and law between the cases appears to make disposition of these cases together more efficient than addressing each case separately. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).) The parties shall meet and confer as to the desirability of consolidation of these actions, for all purposes or for purposes of trial only, and report to the court at the next case management conference the results of such discussions.