Victor Suarez v. Pacific Gas and Company PG and E, 2:16-cv-02282

Plaintiffs Victor Suarez and Saray Ordaz (pro se) allege PG&E contaminated their private well/aquifer in Hinkley, CA with arsenic and uranium during remedial/agricultural operations and that state regulators protected PG&E.
Plaintiffs filed successive complaints: initial complaint (SDWA and §§ 1983, 1985 claims), FAC (dismissed as preempted by SDWA), SAC, and then sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC).
PG&E moved to dismiss the SAC on preemption, statute of limitations, failure to plead discrimination, and failure to allege joint action with state actors.
Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend; Proposed TAC omits allegations of underground injection and instead attributes contamination to irrigation and alleges state-board collusion/bribery.
Court reviewed futility, delay, prejudice, and meet-and-confer compliance; found meet-and-confer efforts deficient but declined to find undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice.
Court denied PG&E’s Motion to Dismiss as moot and granted leave to file the Third Amended Complaint; instructed parties on staged discovery and warned about future procedural noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment is permitted under Rule 15	Suarez seeks leave to amend to assert § 1983 claims in TAC	PG&E contends leave should be denied for undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility	Leave granted; no undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith shown
Whether the SDWA preempts Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims	TAC omits SDWA-type allegations (no public water system or injection alleged) so § 1983 remains viable	SDWA entirely occupies the field and preempts § 1983 remedies for drinking-water claims	TAC not preempted because it does not allege SDWA violations
Whether claims are time-barred	Suarez contends discovery rule and alleged concealment toll limitations	PG&E says prior state-court filings show accrual earlier, so § 1983 claims are untimely	Court finds factual dispute about accrual; cannot resolve as matter of law now
Whether Plaintiffs adequately allege joint action (acting under color of state law)	Plaintiffs allege state board colluded/protected PG&E (bribery/concealment), supporting joint action	PG&E argues no connection between state actors and PG&E; state actors did nothing wrong	Allegations suffice at pleading stage to plausibly allege joint action; not futile

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (motion to amend standards)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (preemption and § 1983 analysis)
Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (statutory remedies and § 1983)
Mattoon v. City of Pittsfield, 980 F.2d 1 (SDWA enforcement scheme and preemption)
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (private actor liability under § 1983 for joint action with state)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual and statute of limitations for § 1983)
PAE Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. MPRI, Inc., 514 F.3d 856 (permitting amended pleadings that alter theories)
DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (delay and prejudice burden in amendment context)