County of Mono v. Liberty Utilities Calpeco Electric, LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 County of Mono, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00834-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 Liberty Utilities Calpeco Electric, LLC, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Plaintiffs County of Mono, the Antelope Valley Fire Protection District, the Totyabe | 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).

20 | Plaintiffs now move to file a first amended complaint against Liberty Utilities.! The court grants | the motion.

22 | I. BACKGROUND 23 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.

26 | 99 1 & 4-5, ECF No. 1-1. Liberty Utilities and Algonquin removed the case to the Central ' The plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed Algonquin. ECF No. 42.

ee I ER III NE IE OS EI ISIE REED | 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 their motion to amend. Order at 9, ECF | No. 29. The court “denie[d] [p]laintiffs’ 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.

9 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 court submitted the matter on the papers. Min. Order, ECF No. 40.

12] Il. LEGAL STANDARD 13 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.” Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

16 | “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 Cnity., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 | (1962)).

22 | Ill. ANALYSIS 23 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 court decides upon a | rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the | same case.’” Askins v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2018) eee II I IIR III II II IE ES OIE IIE ESO IE 1 (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. /d. (“The . . . doctrine does not | preclude a court from reassessing its own legal rulings . . . [it] applies most clearly where an issue | has been decided by a higher court... .”). The court reconsiders the previous decision and opts | to decide the motion to amend on the merit. Additionally, amendment would not be futile, even if | this court would retain jurisdiction after amendment as Liberty Utilities argues. See Opp’n at 7.

7 | “[A]n amendment is ‘futile’ only if it would clearly be subject to dismissal.” SAES Getters S.p.A.

8 | 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. Liberty Utilities’ arguments | are better raised in response to any forthcoming motion for remand. The court finds no basis for | denying leave to amend at this stage.

13 | IV. CONCLUSION 14 The court grants plaintiffs’ motion. Any amended complaint shall be filed with 21 |] days.

16 This order resolves ECF No. 36.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 DATED: November 15, 2021.