512 F.Supp.3d 1055
E.D. Cal.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Pit River Tribe and regional nonprofits) challenge the continued validity of federal Geothermal Lease CA12372 and the BLM-managed Glass Mountain Unit, leased and operated by Calpine.
- Plaintiffs allege Calpine has failed to satisfy ongoing diligence and production-extension requirements in GSA §§1005(g)-(h) and BLM regulations (e.g., 43 C.F.R. §3207.15), triggering BLM’s duty to terminate the lease.
- Plaintiffs also allege the Unit Agreement and 30 U.S.C. §1017 (implemented by 43 C.F.R. Part 3280/3284) require diligent exploration and that failure mandates unit termination.
- Suit is brought under APA §706(1) to compel agency action unlawfully withheld (termination of lease/unit); BLM and Calpine moved to dismiss.
- The court denied BLM’s motion to dismiss, concluded plaintiffs’ claims are within the GSA’s zone of interest, are not claim-precluded by prior Pit River litigation, and sufficiently plead discrete duties under §706(1).
- The court granted in part and denied in part Calpine’s motion: declaratory relief against Calpine was dismissed (no affirmative relief against a non-federal defendant in APA suit), but injunctive relief tied to the lease/unit remained viable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zone of interest | Pit River: environmental/cultural/aesthetic interests are within the zone for GSA §§1005(g)-(h) and §1017 because those provisions protect productive use of public lands. | BLM: Plaintiffs’ interests fall outside the zone, citing prior Pit River holdings on nondiscretionary §1005(a) duties. | Court: Plaintiffs’ interests are arguably within the zone for the diligence/production provisions and unit-administration duties; claims survive. |
| Claim preclusion | Pit River: current claims attack different government conduct (failure to enforce diligence for Lease CA12372 and unit termination). | BLM: Prior Pit River litigation covered Glass Mountain unit/leasing, so current suit is precluded. | Court: Not precluded — prior case challenged different discrete decisions (extension of 26 leases); current suit alleges new facts re: Lease CA12372 and enforcement. |
| APA §706(1) discreteness/legal duty | Pit River: BLM regs (43 C.F.R. §3207.15; §3284.3) impose specific duties to terminate leases/units absent diligent efforts; thus BLM failed to take a discrete required action. | BLM/Calpine: No discrete legal duty alleged; regulations didn’t govern the original extension decision. | Court: Plaintiffs adequately allege a legal duty and failure to take discrete action under §706(1); regulations provide specific commands to terminate when diligence is lacking. |
| Statute of limitations | Pit River: Ongoing duty to enforce diligence creates continuous violations; each day is a discrete accrual so suit is timely. | BLM: Relevant events occurred decades ago; §2401(a) six-year limit bars claims. | Court: Claims are timely — plaintiffs challenge ongoing failures to act and seek relief for continuing violations, so limitations do not bar the suit. |
| Relief against Calpine | Pit River: Named Calpine to obtain complete relief and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. | Calpine: APA provides no private cause of action against non-federal parties; affirmative relief against Calpine improper. | Court: Declaratory relief against Calpine dismissed; injunctive relief that does not impose affirmative liability on Calpine may remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 469 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2006) (earlier successful APA challenge to geothermal project approvals)
- Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015) (challenge to BLM’s unit lease continuations)
- Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 939 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2019) (appeals decision interpreting GSA §1005 scope)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness All., 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (requirement that §706(1) targets a discrete agency action)
- Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 811 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements for stating a §706(1) claim)
- Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012) (zone-of-interest framework favors plaintiff where arguable statutory interest exists)
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (no affirmative relief against non-federal defendants under APA)