Background

• SolarCity filed a federal antitrust suit against the Salt River Project alleging attempts to entrench a monopoly by pricing to disfavor solar providers.
• Power District moved to dismiss under state-action immunity, arguing authority to set prices under Arizona law.
• District court denied the motion; Power District appealed despite no interlocutory certification.
• Question presented: whether denial of state-action immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
• Court held that state-action immunity is a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit, so collateral-order appeal is unavailable.
• Conclusion: the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; other avenues for review remain (e.g., §1292(b), mandamus).

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1943) (state-action immunity from liability recognized)
• FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., 568 U.S. 216 (U.S. 2013) (affirmative state policy to displace competition; state action immunity context)
• N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC, 135 S.Ct. 1101 (S. Ct. 2015) (state-action immunity in FTC suit context)
• Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (collateral-order doctrine is a narrow exception)
• Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (U.S. 2006) (emphasizes limited scope of collateral order; public-interest considerations)
• Dig. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1994) (three-part test for collateral-order jurisdiction)
• Nunag-Tanedo v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd., 711 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (Noerr-Pennington immunity treated as immunity from liability, not from suit)
• Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2003) (preemption defense not an immunity from suit)