SOLARCITY CORPORATION v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT

No. 15-17302.

SOLARCITY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed June 12, 2017.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM*

We lack jurisdiction to consider the Power District's arguments based on Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-820.01. That section establishes an immunity against claims for damages, but not against claims for injunctive relief. AlliedSignal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 182 F.3d 692, 697 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Zeigler v. Kirschner, 781 P.2d 54, 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989)). SolarCity's claims for antitrust damages were dismissed, and neither it nor the Power District has appealed that decision. SolarCity also abandoned its previously asserted claim for tort damages in favor of an earlier trial. Thus, section 12-820.01 can become relevant only after judgment is entered, if at all—for example, if SolarCity eventually appeals the district court's order dismissing its damages claims. The Power District's current appeal of the issue is thus not ripe.1 See, e.g., Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (emphasizing that a collateral order can be appealed only if review would be ineffective after final judgment); Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) ("A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon `contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.'" (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985))).

Lastly, as to the filed-rate doctrine, the Power District argues only that we have pendent jurisdiction to consider its appeal. We cannot have pendent jurisdiction without appellate jurisdiction over some other matter—which we lack for the reasons stated above and in our concurrently filed opinion.

DISMISSED.

FootNotes


** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1. The Power District's motion for judicial notice is accordingly denied as moot.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases