Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. County of Solano
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18866
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Potrero Hills and 22 related waste entities challenged Solano County Measure E (95,000 tons/year import cap) as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.
- State court mandamus actions were ongoing by private environmental groups seeking to enforce Measure E against the County.
- Federal §1983 action sought declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating Measure E; district court dismissed under Younger abstention.
- The district court concluded ongoing state mandamus proceedings implicated important state executive interests; it abstained.
- This appeal centers on whether Younger applies given private mandamus actions and what state interests are implicated; court vacates and remands to consider Pullman abstention.
- County and State amici supported federal adjudication; Intervenors argued Younger should apply to compel enforcement of Measure E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Younger abstention applies to this private enforcement context | Potrero Hills and private groups contend ongoing mandamus actions implicate important state interests. | State interests in enforcing Measure E and local waste laws support abstention. | Younger abstention does not apply. |
| Whether private mandamus actions can trigger state-enforcement interests under Younger | Private mandamus actions should count as enforcement by the state. | Private citizens lack executive authority; actions do not implicate vital state functions. | No vital executive function implicated; abstention inappropriate. |
| Whether the state judiciary's and voters’ legislative interests create vital Younger concerns | State judiciary and voters’ initiative rights raise important state interests. | General judicial or legislative interests are not sufficient for vital Younger concerns. | No vital judicial or legislative interests shown. |
| Whether the district court should have abstained under Pullman | Pullman abstention could avoid premature constitutional ruling if state law could be interpreted. | State law interpretation is unsettled; abstention may be appropriate but not automatic. | Pullman abstention to be considered on remand; vacate for further review. |
| Whether remand for Pullman abstention is warranted rather than complete dismissal | Pullman provides a path to abstain if state-law issues predominate. | Younger not applicable; leave Pullman as alternative on remand. | Remand to address Pullman abstention first. |
Key Cases Cited
- Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (three-part test for Younger in civil proceedings; ongoing state action and important state interests)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007) (adds requirement that federal action would enjoin or have practical effect on the state proceeding)
- Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (discusses Younger abstention scope and comity concerns)
- Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977) (early articulation of Younger principles in broader civil context)
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (1987) (concept of federal courts respecting state procedures and avoiding premature adjudication)
- N.O.P.S.I. v. City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) (articulates comity and abstention framework in broader federal-state relations)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (no Younger bar to federal injunctive relief in face of threatened state action)
- White v. San Remo Hotel, 145 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1998) (Pullman abstention considerations and state-law interpretations)