Tri-Dam v. Frazier, 1:20-cv-00408

Background

Plaintiff Tri‑Dam operates the Tulloch Hydroelectric Project under a FERC license that includes a FERC‑approved Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) and a permitting program for facilities within the project boundary.
Defendant Frazier installed a slip dock, PWC ports, and a waterslide extending into the Project boundary without Tri‑Dam permits; Tri‑Dam alleges complaints about navigability and safety and demanded removal.
Tri‑Dam sued asserting violations of the Federal Power Act (FPA), FERC regulations, and state causes of action: public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and interference with express easement, seeking injunctions and damages.
Frazier moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, arguing the case does not arise under the cited federal statutes.
The court held that the FPA does not itself create a private cause of action, but federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 because Tri‑Dam’s public nuisance claim necessarily raises a substantial, disputed federal issue (interpretation of the SMP, part of the FERC license).
The motion to dismiss was denied; the court ordered discovery and modified the scheduling order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Section 825p/FPA creates a private cause of action or independent basis for federal jurisdiction	Tri‑Dam: its enforcement of the SMP (a FERC‑approved license condition) is an action to enforce duties under the FPA, so Section 825p governs federal jurisdiction	Frazier: FPA/Section 825p does not create a private cause of action or support jurisdiction here	Held: Section 825p is an exclusive‑jurisdiction provision, not a source of a private cause of action; it does not independently create jurisdiction
Whether federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331/§ 1337 for state‑law claims	Tri‑Dam: public nuisance claim requires interpretation of the SMP (a federal instrument), thus raising a federal question	Frazier: state‑law claims should be decided by state law; Pressl supports no federal jurisdiction	Held: Under Gunn factors, the public nuisance claim necessarily, actually, and substantially raises a disputed federal issue (SMP interpretation); §§ 1331/1337 jurisdiction exists
Whether the federal issue (SMP interpretation) is "necessarily raised" and "actually disputed"	Tri‑Dam: Calaveras County code makes noncompliance with Tri‑Dam permits (i.e., SMP conformity) a public nuisance per se, so resolution requires interpreting the SMP	Frazier: denies facilities are unpermitted and disputes noncompliance; contends state law could resolve the claim	Held: SMP interpretation is essential to proving public nuisance and is disputed by the parties, satisfying those Gunn prongs
Whether exercising federal jurisdiction would be "substantial" and disrupt federal‑state balance	Tri‑Dam: FPA establishes a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme; interpreting SMPs is important to federal interests in project regulation	Frazier: federal forum is unnecessary; reliance on Pressl to argue against substantial federal interest	Held: Issue is substantial to the federal system (FERC’s licensing scheme); exercising jurisdiction will not disturb the federal‑state balance

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (federal law usually creates the cause of action; limits on federal question jurisdiction)
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (four‑part test for substantial federal question jurisdiction over state claims)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (federal issue in state claim may confer federal jurisdiction when important to federal system)
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125 (well‑pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction)
Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 1033 (Ninth Circuit discussion of what it means for a federal issue to be "necessarily raised")
Carrington v. City of Tacoma, Dep’t of Pub. Utilities, Light Div., 276 F. Supp. 3d 1035 (state law claim against a FERC licensee implicated federal law because license established duties)
Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co., 842 F.3d 299 (Fourth Circuit decision limiting federal jurisdiction over state disputes involving FERC licensees)
Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Delaware, 366 U.S. 656 (exclusive jurisdiction provisions do not themselves create a cause of action)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 136 S. Ct. 1562 (exclusive‑jurisdiction provisions coextensive with "arising under" jurisdiction for § 1331 analysis)