From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cnty. of Mono v. Liberty Utilities Calpeco Elec.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 15, 2021
2:21-cv-00834-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00834-KJM-KJN

11-15-2021

County of Mono, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Liberty Utilities Calpeco Electric, LLC, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiffs County of Mono, the Antelope Valley Fire Protection District, the Toiyabe Indian Health Project, Inc., and the Bridgeport Indian Colony filed this action against Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC and Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp. (Algonquin). Plaintiffs now move to file a first amended complaint against Liberty Utilities. The court grants the motion.

The plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed Algonquin. ECF No. 42.

I. BACKGROUND

In January 2021, plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Not. of Removal ¶ 8, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs' property was damaged in the Mountain View Fire, which the plaintiffs claim Liberty Utilities and Algonquin caused. Compl. ¶¶ 1 & 4-5, ECF No. 1-1. Liberty Utilities and Algonquin removed the case to the Central District of California, see generally Not. of Removal, and sought to transfer the case to this district, Mot. Transfer, ECF No. 10. Meanwhile, plaintiffs moved for remand. Mot. Remand, ECF No. 19, and leave to amend to clarify there was no federal question jurisdiction. Mot. Am. at 3, ECF No. 14-1. Plaintiffs then withdrew the motion because they learned "that some of the land affected by the subject fire includes tribal trust lands." Withdrawal at 2, ECF No. 15. At hearing before the Central District judge, plaintiffs renewed then motion to amend. Order at 9, ECF No. 29. The court "denie[d] [plaintiffs' request for leave to amend," id. at 10 n. 3, found there was federal question jurisdiction, and transferred the matter to this court, id. at 10.

Plaintiffs now move to file a first amended complaint. Mot. ECF No. 36; Mem., ECF No. 36-1. Liberty Utilities opposes, Opp'n, ECF No. 38, and plaintiffs have replied. Reply, ECF No. 41. The comt submitted the matter on the papers. Min. Order, ECF No. 40.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states the court should "freely give[ ] [leave to amend] when justice so requires" and the Ninth Circuit has "stressed Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments." Ascot) Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). "Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of 'undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.'" See Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs make clear they intend to remove reliance on any federal questions in their complaint. Mem. at 1, and subsequently move for remand. Reply at 5 n.2. Liberty Utilities argues the court should deny amendment under the law-of-the-case doctrine and because amendment would be futile. Opp'n at 2. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, '"when a comt decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages hi the same case.'" Asians v. U.S. Dep'tof Homeland Sec, 899 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The court is not persuaded the law-of-the-case doctrine binds it to the previous District Judge's decision to deny leave to amend the complaint. Id. ("The ... doctrine does not preclude a comi from reassessing its own legal rulings .. . [it] applies most clearly where an issue has been decided by a higher court ...."). The comi reconsiders the previous decision and opts to decide the motion to amend on the merit. Additionally, amendment would not be futile, even if this comi would retain jurisdiction after amendment as Libe1iy Utilities argues. See Opp'n at 7. "[A]n amendment is 'futile' only if it would clearly be subject to dismissal." SAES Getters S.p.A. v. Aeronex, Inc., 219 F.Supp.2d 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987)). Here, the court cannot say the proposed amendment would render the complaint clearly subject to dismissal. Libe1iy Utilities' arguments are better raised in response to any f1thcoming motion for remand. The court finds no basis for denying leave to amend at this stage.

IV. CONCLUSION

The comi grants plaintiffs' motion. Any amended complaint shall be filed with 21 days.

This order resolves ECF No. 36.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cnty. of Mono v. Liberty Utilities Calpeco Elec.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 15, 2021
2:21-cv-00834-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Cnty. of Mono v. Liberty Utilities Calpeco Elec.

Case Details

Full title:County of Mono, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Liberty Utilities Calpeco Electric…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 15, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-00834-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021)