596 F. App'x 571
9th Cir.2015Background
- CARE appeals district court dismissal of claims against CPUC and commissioners; CARE petitioned for enforcement under PURPA and FERC did not act within 60 days; exhaustion of administrative remedies under PURPA at issue; district court dismissed several §1983, Johnson Act, PURPA, and takings claims; court reversed and remanded on claim 1 but affirmed others; underlying complaint included Solutions for Utilities and Southern California Edison as non-parties to appeal.
- CARE alleged First Amendment retaliation and vexatious litigant designation under §1983, intervenor fees claim under Johnson Act, PURPA-based §1983 claim, and takings claim; district court dismissed all but claim 1.
- Court's de novo review of dismissal and abuse-of-discretion review for leave to amend; decision to reverse/remand on claim 1 and affirm others.
- Court held exhaustion satisfied for PURPA claim; adverse findings on retaliatory motive and as-applied challenged; Johnson Act withdrawal of state rate cases; PURPA has remedial scheme precluding §1983 claim; no protected property interest for takings claim.
- Disposition: AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, REMANDED; costs borne by parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PURPA exhaustion was jurisdictional. | CARE exhausted remedies; FERC did not act within 60 days. | PURPA exhaustion not jurisdictional; premature complaint allowed. | Exhaustion satisfied; remanded for proceedings on claim 1. |
| Whether §1983 First Amendment claim against CPUC survives. | CARE alleged retaliatory motive for vexatious litigant designation. | No sufficient showing of but-for causation of retaliatory motive. | District court correct; affirm on alternate grounds. |
| Whether intervenor fees claim falls under the Johnson Act. | Intervenor fees are cognizable under §1983; burden shown. | Johnson Act withdraws state rate cases when four prongs satisfied. | Johnson Act applies; lack of federal jurisdiction; claim dismissed. |
| Whether PURPA claim can be brought under §1983. | Purports to seek PURPA remedies via §1983. | PURPA provides exclusive remedies; comprehensive scheme. | Precluded; no §1983 PURPA claim. |
| Whether CARE has a protectable Takings Act claim. | CARe seeks loss of expected PURPA profits. | No protected property interest; not complete loss. | No takings claim; no complete loss; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.2002) (de novo review for dismissal decisions)
- Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office Inc., 839 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir.1988) (standard of review for dismissal/summary judgment)
- SIcoog v. Cnty. of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir.2006) (requiring but-for causation in §1983 First Amendment claim)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.2008) (affirm on any ground supported by record)
- U.S. West, Inc. v. Nelson, 146 F.3d 718 (9th Cir.1998) (Johnson Act four-prong test for jurisdictional effect)
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (PURPA remedial scheme limits §1983 claims)
- Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd., 62 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal.App.1998) (no protected property interest in anticipated profits)