The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a judgment favoring the San Diego Unified Port District in a legal dispute involving the management of public tidelands. The ruling, issued on November 4, 2026, affects local governance and public trust management in the area surrounding Coronado. The case, known as Herron v. San Diego Unified Port District (Docket No. D087310), centers on a petition filed by Matthew V. Herron, who sought to close a restaurant operating at the Coronado Municipal Golf Course.

Herron claimed that the Port District had failed to fulfill its ministerial duty by allowing the Feast and Fareway restaurant to operate in violation of the lease terms with the City of Coronado. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the discretion of public agencies in managing public trust lands and clarifies the limitations of individual citizens in enforcing lease agreements.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Matthew V. Herron, the plaintiff and appellant, and the San Diego Unified Port District, the defendant and respondent. The dispute arises from Herron’s ongoing legal efforts to challenge the Port District’s management of public tidelands, particularly regarding the operation of the Feast and Fareway restaurant at the Golf Course.

The San Diego Unified Port District has managed the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego since 1962, following the San Diego Unified Port District Act. The City of Coronado leases the Golf Course from the Port District under a lease agreement that specifies the allowed uses of the premises. Herron’s late wife, Denise Herron, previously filed a complaint against the City in 2020, claiming that the concession agreement with Feast and Fareway violated the lease terms. This earlier case was dismissed, with the court affirming that the City acted within its rights.

In August 2024, Herron filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Port District, arguing that the operation of Feast and Fareway violated the public trust doctrine and the lease agreement. The Port District responded with a demurrer, asserting that Herron lacked standing to enforce the lease and that the court did not have jurisdiction over the Port District’s discretionary decisions regarding public trust lands.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Port District, affirming the trial court's decision to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. The court found that Herron did not have standing to enforce the lease terms, as he was neither a party to the lease nor a direct beneficiary. The court stated, “public agencies and their agents have ‘no special duty to carry out the terms of contracts.’”

The ruling emphasized that the Port District has broad discretion in managing public trust lands and that Herron’s claims did not demonstrate any violation of the public trust. The court noted that the lease allowed the City to operate a snack bar, which included the sale of alcoholic beverages, and that the decision to allow Feast and Fareway to operate was a discretionary one made by the Port District.

The court’s opinion highlighted that Herron failed to identify any ministerial duty that the Port District neglected. The court concluded that allowing a restaurant to operate on public trust land did not inherently violate the public trust doctrine, stating, “Herron has not established that leasing... a portion of the tidelands for the operation of a commercial establishment... is a violation of the public trust.”

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the management of public trust lands in California. It reinforces the authority of public agencies like the San Diego Unified Port District to make discretionary decisions regarding the use of public lands without interference from individual citizens. The court’s decision clarifies that individuals cannot use traditional mandamus to enforce lease agreements they are not party to, which may limit future legal challenges similar to Herron’s.

The ruling also underscores the importance of the public trust doctrine in ensuring that public lands are managed for the benefit of the public. By affirming the Port District’s discretion, the court has set a precedent that may influence how public agencies approach lease agreements and land use in the future.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Herron plans to appeal the ruling. There are no related cases pending at this time. However, this decision may prompt further discussions about the management of public trust lands and the rights of citizens to challenge public agency decisions.