Sarale v. California Independent System Operator Corp.
705 F. App'x 614
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- William and Julie Sarale own a walnut farm crossed by PG&E high-voltage transmission lines. PG&E trimmed trees near the lines pursuant to a 1915 easement.
- The Sarales sued, alleging PG&E exceeded the easement scope and effected a taking and other state-law wrongs.
- The California Court of Appeal previously held the PG&E easement existed as a matter of law and that issues about trimming reasonableness were for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
- CPUC later adjudicated the Sarales’ complaint after a five-hour evidentiary hearing and concluded PG&E’s trimming was necessary, proper, and reasonable.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the Sarales’ federal civil-rights/takings complaint and affirmed based on collateral estoppel arising from the prior state-court and CPUC decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence/scope of easement | Sarale: PG&E exceeded easement by trimming beyond permitted scope | PG&E: 1915 easement authorizes trimming; easement unambiguous | Court: Easement exists as matter of law; prior state decision precludes relitigation |
| Whether trimming was unreasonable/excessive | Sarale: Trimming was excessive and a taking/unlawful interference | PG&E: Trimming was reasonable and needed to prevent fire; regulated by CPUC | Court: CPUC found trimming reasonable; collateral estoppel bars relitigation |
| Federal/state jurisdiction to review trimming reasonableness | Sarale: federal forum for constitutional takings claim | PG&E: CPUC has exclusive authority to adjudicate reasonableness of utility vegetation management | Court: Prior state decisions established CPUC jurisdiction and preclusive effect |
| Viability of tort/fraud/civil-rights claims | Sarale: damages from PG&E actions and alleged misrepresentations | PG&E: Lawful exercise of easement defeats damages, trespass, fraud, and civil-rights elements | Court: Claims fail because PG&E acted within easement and CPUC’s final decision precludes relitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarale v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 189 Cal. App. 4th 225 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (state appellate decision holding easement exists and directing CPUC jurisdiction)
- Plaine v. McCabe, 797 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1986) (sets out Utah Construction fairness test for agency adjudication preclusion)
- United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1966) (fairness factors for collateral estoppel against administrative findings)
- Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd., 487 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2007) (collateral estoppel under California law; necessity of prior ruling to judgment)
- Campbell v. State of Washington Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 671 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2011) (court may affirm on any ground supported by record)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (standards for regulatory taking analyses)
- Misischia v. Pirie, 60 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 1995) (opportunity for judicial review of administrative decisions bears on preclusion)