Catherine Woolsey v. Jp Morgan Ventures Energy Corp
691 F. App'x 308
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Woolsey, Ball, Reidinger) sued JPM Ventures and JPMorgan Chase under RICO, alleging fraudulent manipulation of California wholesale electricity rates that increased retail electricity costs.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, holding the filed rate doctrine barred the RICO claim; plaintiffs appealed.
- The claims concern FERC-approved wholesale electricity rates in California and seek damages for rates plaintiffs allege were unlawfully high during the relevant period.
- Plaintiffs relied on Carlin v. DairyAmerica to argue the filed rate doctrine should not bar their RICO claim, claiming an exception where an agency has rejected rates as tainted by fraud.
- The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed dismissal, holding the filed rate doctrine bars suits challenging the lawfulness of FERC-approved wholesale electricity rates and directing aggrieved parties to FERC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filed rate doctrine bars a civil RICO claim challenging FERC‑approved wholesale electricity rates | Carlin creates an exception when an agency has rejected rates as fraudulent; thus doctrine should not bar this RICO suit | Filed rate doctrine bars private damages suits that effectively attack the lawfulness of filed FERC rates; only FERC can provide relief | Affirmed: filed rate doctrine bars the RICO claim; plaintiffs must seek relief from FERC |
| Whether Carlin controls here | Carlin permits private RICO suits when the regulator has disavowed rates as fraudulent | Carlin was narrow and excluded FERC‑regulated rates because federal statutes prohibit retroactive alteration of filed rates | Held: Carlin does not apply to FERC‑approved rates; its narrow exception is inapplicable |
| Whether plaintiffs’ complaint is meaningfully distinguishable from prior cases barring similar claims | Plaintiffs contend factual distinctions avoid prior precedents | Defendants point to extensive Ninth Circuit precedent barring analogous challenges to California wholesale rates | Held: Plaintiffs’ claim is not meaningfully different; precedent controls and bars the suit |
| Whether alternative district court dismissal ground must be reached | Plaintiffs challenge alternate ground | Court need not address alternative ground because filed rate doctrine is dispositive | Held: No need to reach alternative ground; dismissal affirmed on filed rate doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Wah Chang v. Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., LLC, 507 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2007) (filed rate doctrine barred a retail consumer’s RICO claim challenging wholesale electricity rates)
- Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty. v. Dynegy Power Mktg., Inc., 384 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2004) (FERC‑approved tariffs preclude private suits challenging wholesale prices; relief must be sought at FERC)
- Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Grays Harbor Cty. Wash. v. Idacorp Inc., 379 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 2004) (only FERC provides a remedy for claims that filed wholesale rates are unjust or unlawful)
- California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004) (filed rate doctrine bars various private challenges to wholesale electricity pricing)
- Transmission Agency of N. Cal. v. Sierra Pac. Power Co., 295 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining the scope of filed rate doctrine in wholesale electricity context)
- Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., 705 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2012) (narrowly created exception to filed rate doctrine where the regulator explicitly rejected rates as fraudulent; limited and not extended to FERC rates)
- Ark. La. Gas. Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571 (1981) (filed rate doctrine principles regarding exclusivity of regulatory remedies)