Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable
923 F.3d 1163
9th Cir.2019Background
- Comcast paid a security deposit and annual franchise/PEG fees under a local SMCTC cable franchise; after California’s DIVCA moved franchising to the CPUC, the SMCTC franchise expired and Comcast transitioned to a CPUC franchise.
- Comcast continued paying SMCTC franchise/PEG fees but withheld CPUC fees and excluded PEG fees from its gross-revenue calculations, claiming those counted toward the federal 5% franchise-fee cap.
- SMCTC audited Comcast, demanded withheld amounts (~$334,610), threatened to offset Comcast’s disputed liability against the security deposit, and ultimately moved the deposit into its general fund.
- Comcast sued SMCTC in state court (conversion and common count) seeking return of the deposit (~$227,639.45). The district court granted partial summary judgment to each side on fee-calculation issues and, sua sponte, concluded 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a) did not bar the suit.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether § 555a(a) — which limits relief against franchising authorities in suits "arising from the regulation of cable service" to declaratory or injunctive relief — bars Comcast’s money-damages suit and held it does.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SMCTC waived the § 555a(a) defense by not raising it earlier | Comcast: SMCTC failed to timely raise § 555a(a), so it’s waived | SMCTC: the district court raised it sua sponte; appellate briefing addresses it | Court: No waiver; appellate review permissible because issue of law was decided below and record is developed |
| Whether Comcast’s claims "arise from the regulation of cable service" under § 555a(a) | Comcast: complaint seeks return of a deposit — a garden-variety conversion claim not arising from cable regulation | SMCTC: the deposit and dispute stem from franchise agreements and fee calculations governed by cable law | Court: Claims arise from cable regulation (substance over form); § 555a(a) applies |
| Whether § 555a(a) bars money damages here | Comcast: Congress didn’t intend immunity to cover disputes like this; suit is narrowly about property return | SMCTC: § 555a(a)’s plain language bars civil damages for claims arising from cable regulation | Court: § 555a(a) unambiguously bars monetary relief; dismissal required |
| Scope of dismissal and availability of alternative relief | Comcast: dismissal leaves no remedy to recover the deposit | SMCTC: § 555a(a) permits declaratory or injunctive relief; other remedies may exist | Court: Dismissal without prejudice; plaintiff may attempt amendment to seek declaratory/injunctive relief or other proper procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc. v. City of Chula Vista, 80 F.3d 320 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing municipal exposure to cable-regulation damages and § 555a(a))
- Coplin v. Fairfield Public Access Television Committee, 111 F.3d 1395 (8th Cir. 1997) (suit clearly concerned cable regulation and was within § 555a(a)’s scope)
- Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 835 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993) (legislative background on local-government burdens from damage claims)
- City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (artful pleading cannot avoid § 555a(a))
- Stoyas v. Toshiba Corp., 896 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2018) (standard favoring leave to amend unless amendment cannot cure defects)