Tom Findley v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 5:16-cv-00677

Background

Plaintiffs Tom Findley and Kimberly Blowney (pro se) allege PG&E contaminated their private well/aquifer in Hinkley, CA with arsenic and uranium and that PG&E’s remedial/agricultural operations worsened contamination.
Plaintiffs originally sued asserting SDWA and civil‑rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3); the FAC was dismissed as preempted by the SDWA with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC); PG&E moved to dismiss the SAC arguing SDWA preemption, failure to plead § 1985(3) discrimination, statute of limitations, and lack of joint action for § 1983 liability.
Plaintiffs then moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (Proposed TAC) that (1) dropped SDWA injection allegations, (2) attributes contamination partly to PG&E irrigation/crop practices, and (3) alleges state regulators colluded with PG&E to conceal contamination.
The court found meet‑and‑confer efforts deficient but concluded there was no undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice warranting denial; it permitted amendment because the Proposed TAC was not futile, not clearly time‑barred, and plausibly alleged joint action with state actors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment should be allowed under Rule 15	Findley seeks leave to file Proposed TAC to refine theories and allege joint action with state regulators	PG&E argues delay, contradictions, and prejudice; amendment is futile	Granted: no undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith; amendment not futile
Whether SDWA preempts § 1983 claim in Proposed TAC	Proposed TAC omits SDWA/injection theory and alleges non‑public‑system contamination from irrigation/remedial operations	PG&E contends SDWA occupies the field and preempts § 1983	Denied: Proposed TAC does not allege SDWA violations (public water system or underground injection), so § 1983 not preempted at this stage
Whether claims are time‑barred	Plaintiffs assert discovery rule and concealment; injury discovery may be within two years before federal filing	PG&E points to prior 2014 state complaint alleging injury earlier, arguing accrual occurred earlier and claims are untimely	Denied on present record: factual question remains when plaintiffs discovered injury; not clearly time‑barred
Whether Proposed TAC alleges joint action (state‑actor involvement) to state § 1983 claim against private defendant	Plaintiffs allege state water board concealed contamination and protected PG&E (bribery/concealment), enabling joint action	PG&E says no facts tie state actors to PG&E misconduct; state actors did nothing wrong	Held: Allegations, construed liberally, plausibly plead joint action sufficient to proceed past futility review

Key Cases Cited

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (preemption analysis for § 1983 claims focuses on congressional intent)
Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) (comprehensive statutory enforcement schemes can preclude § 1983 remedies)
Mattoon v. City of Pittsfield, 980 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992) (SDWA constitutes occupying the field of public drinking water regulation)
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) (private parties who willfully join with state officials act under color of law for § 1983)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual rule for § 1983 claims; state personal injury limitations apply)
PAE Gov’t Servs. v. MPRI, 514 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2007) (amendments that abandon earlier claims are often part of litigation, not sham pleading)
Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) (futility of amendment may justify denial if proposed claim would fail under Rule 12(b)(6))