City of San Juan Capistrano v. Cpuc, 937 F.3d 1278

San Juan Capistrano opposed San Diego Gas & Electric’s project to replace a transmission line and upgrade a substation on utility-owned land within the city; it participated as a party in CPUC proceedings.
The CPUC administrative law judge recommended an alternate, lower-impact project, but the assigned commissioner—after ex parte meetings with the utility—recommended approval of the original proposal and the Commission approved it.
The CPUC denied the City’s rehearing application by inaction; the City did not seek judicial review in California state court and instead sued the Commission in federal court alleging due process violations and seeking prospective relief and fees.
The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding a political subdivision lacks standing to bring such constitutional challenges in federal court and amendment would be futile.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed standing and sovereign-immunity issues de novo and affirmed: it held the City lacks standing under Ninth Circuit precedent and that the Commission is protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; the City’s belated attempt to amend to sue a commissioner under Ex parte Young was waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a political subdivision may bring a federal due process challenge to a state agency decision	City: South Lake Tahoe rule is limited; it may challenge the Commission’s conduct in federal court	CPUC: Ninth Circuit precedent bars political subdivisions from suing states on constitutional grounds in federal court	Held: City lacks standing under circuit precedent (City of South Lake Tahoe)
Whether the CPUC is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment	City: initially disputed immunity; later conceded CPUC immunity but sought alternative relief	CPUC: is an arm of the State and entitled to sovereign immunity	Held: Claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; CPUC immune
Whether the City may amend to sue a commissioner for prospective relief under Ex parte Young	City: should be allowed leave to add an official to pursue prospective relief	CPUC: Eleventh Amendment bars suit against the state; amendment was not sought below	Held: Ex parte Young theory was waived because City never timely sought to add a commissioner

City of South Lake Tahoe v. Cal. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1980) (per se rule barring political subdivisions from federal constitutional challenges to state law)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states and state agencies in federal court)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (allows prospective relief against state officials for ongoing federal-law violations)
Williams v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 289 U.S. 36 (1933) (older precedent treating municipal constitutional claims against the creating state as unavailable)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (modern Article III standing framework)
Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal., 833 F.2d 200 (9th Cir. 1987) (CPUC is entitled to sovereign immunity)
Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) (observing political subdivisions are not sovereign entities)