235 F. Supp. 3d 1132
E.D. Cal.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Committee to Protect our Agricultural Water, Mike Hopkins, John Wedel) sued California officials, DOGGR and its supervisors, Kern County official Oviatt, three oil companies (Occidental, CRC, Chevron), and two trade associations (WSPA, CIPA), alleging a conspiracy to allow Class II injection wells to contaminate fresh water and seeking injunctive relief and money damages under RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3).
- The First Amended Complaint alleges coordinated meetings, political contributions, lobbying/PR, and communications beginning in 2011 that plaintiffs characterize as racketeering and civil-rights violations tied to violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and related conduct.
- Defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) raising defenses including Noerr‑Pennington, Eleventh Amendment, absolute and qualified immunity, RICO standing and pleading defects, failure to state § 1983/§ 1985 claims, and other procedural defenses.
- The court took extensive judicial‑notice requests; it granted notice for some public records and denied plaintiffs’ voluminous request for lack of specificity; it did not rely on the contested Chernow declaration.
- The court dismissed all claims in the FAC as deficient in pleading or barred by immunity, denying leave to amend for several claims but granting limited leave to amend for others (individual‑capacity claims against certain officials and claims against private defendants).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Noerr‑Pennington immunity | Plaintiffs concede petitioning conduct but contend sham exception applies because defendants conspired to illegally allow contamination | Defendants say conduct was petitioning to an executive agency (DOGGR) and protected; sham exception inapplicable because activity was political/administrative not sham | Noerr‑Pennington bars claims against Occidental, Chevron, CIPA, WSPA (petitioning conduct to DOGGR); does not bar claims against government defendants whose conduct alleged was not petitioning to another government entity |
| Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young | Plaintiffs say Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against state actors (Gov. Brown, Nechodom, Kustic) | Defendants argue state and state agencies (DOGGR) are immune; officials lack the enforcement connection for Ex parte Young; former officials cannot provide prospective relief | Eleventh Amendment bars suits against DOGGR and official‑capacity money claims; prospective relief unavailable against Governor and some former officials; Nechodom (CDC director) can be sued for prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young due to alleged enforcement connection |
| RICO standing and pleading (§§ 1962(c),(d)) | Plaintiffs assert injury to property (reduced yields, orchard removal) and an association‑in‑fact enterprise; allege mail/wire fraud, honest‑services fraud, witness tampering predicates | Defendants argue plaintiffs lack § 1964(c) standing (association cannot seek money for members; individual farmers' causation attenuated); RICO predicates not plead with Rule 9(b) particularity; enterprise and pattern not alleged | Court: Committee lacks standing to seek monetary relief; Hopkins and Wedel allege injury but fail proximate causation; RICO predicates (mail/wire, honest‑services, witness‑tampering) insufficiently pled under Rule 9(b); enterprise and pattern not plausibly alleged; § 1962(c) and (d) claims dismissed (with limited leave to amend as to some defendants) |
| § 1983 and § 1985(3) claims | Plaintiffs contend petition and takings violations and allege private–public conspiracy | Defendants: state and official‑capacity § 1983 claims barred (not "persons"), private actors not shown to act under color of state law, takings claim unripe (no exhaustion), § 1985 requires class‑based animus | Court: Official‑capacity § 1983 claims dismissed; plaintiffs fail to plead state action/conspiracy sufficient to hold private parties liable under § 1983; Fifth Amendment takings claim unripe (no state remedies exhausted); § 1985(3) fails for lack of constitutional deprivation and no class‑based animus |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (Noerr‑Pennington origins)
- Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, 486 U.S. 492 (Noerr‑Pennington protects petitioning; limits of sham doctrine)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (prospective relief against state officers for federal‑law violations)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (officials sued in individual capacity not shielded by Eleventh Amendment)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (RICO pattern—continuity and relatedness)
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (person must participate in operation or management of RICO enterprise)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (associated‑in‑fact enterprise concept under RICO)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states and officials sued in official capacity not "persons" under § 1983)
- Sosa v. DIRECTV, 437 F.3d 923 (Noerr‑Pennington applies beyond antitrust; to RICO and § 1983 contexts)