SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District

692 F. App'x 458
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District. Read the opinion of the Court — 859 F.3d 720
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 12, 2017·No. 15-17302·Unpublished

Opinion

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. Allied-Signal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 182 F.3d 692, 697 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Zeigler v. Kirschner, 162 Ariz. 77, 781 P.2d 54, 61 (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., *459 Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (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, 118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (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, 105 S.Ct. 3325, 87 L.Ed.2d 409 (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.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, 692 F. App'x 458 (9th Cir. 2017).

692 F. App'x 458 (SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter
558 U.S. 100 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co.
473 U.S. 568 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Texas v. United States
523 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Zeigler v. Kirschner
781 P.2d 54 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1989)