City & County of San Francisco v. U.S. Department of Transportation
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13274
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2010 a PG&E natural gas transmission pipeline ruptured in San Bruno, California, causing a deadly explosion and extensive damage.
- San Francisco sued the Secretary of Transportation and PHMSA, alleging the Pipeline Safety Act was not complied with in regulating intrastate California pipelines.
- San Francisco claimed the Agency approved the CPUC certification that California met federal safety standards and provided funding to the CPUC for enforcement.
- The district court dismissed San Francisco's case, finding no cognizable claim under the Pipeline Safety Act’s citizen-suit provision and no valid APA claim.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s rulings, holding that the Pipeline Safety Act does not authorize mandamus-type citizen suits and that the APA claims are unreviewable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Pipeline Safety Act authorize mandamus claims against the Agency? | San Francisco argues the citizen suit provision permits mandamus relief to compel agency action. | DOT argues the Act only authorizes suits for substantive violations by regulated parties, not mandamus actions against the Agency. | No; mandamus-type suits are not authorized by § 60121(a). |
| Are San Francisco's APA claims challenging agency certification/funding reviewable? | Agency arbitrary action in approving CPUC certification and funding should be reviewable under the APA. | Agency actions are discretionary and not subject to APA review when committed to agency discretion by law. | No; the challenged actions are discretionary and presumptively unreviewable under § 701(a)(2). |
| Is the district court's dismissal proper based on the foregoing? | The plaintiff's claims fall within APA review or mandamus rights. | Claims are outside the scope of the Act and the APA, and thus dismissible. | Affirmed; the case fails under both the Pipeline Safety Act and the APA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (limits 'violation' to substantive party conduct; supports no mandamus via citizen suit)
- Middlesex Cnty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1981) (plain-language and context aid statutory interpretation)
- Endangered Species Act, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (statutory comparison informing 'violation' scope and reviewability)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (U.S. 2015) (read statutory provisions in context within overall scheme)
- Amerada Hess Corp. v. Dep’t of Interior, 170 F.3d 1032 (10th Cir. 1999) (citizen-suit interpretation and agency review limits after Bennett)
- OXY USA, Inc. v. Babbitt, 122 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 1997) (limits on broad umbrella review under citizen-suit analogies)
- Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeño Indians v. Jewell, 729 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2013) (APA review of lump-sum funding discretion scope)
- Helgeson v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 153 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 1998) (discretionary funding decisions reviewed only within statutory constraints)
- Beno v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (statutory discretion weighs against broad APA review)