1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 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. 16 17 Plaintiffs County of Mono, the Antelope Valley Fire Protection District, the Totyabe 18 | Indian Health Project, Inc., and the Bridgeport Indian Colony filed this action against Liberty 19 | 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 21 | the motion. 22 | I. BACKGROUND 23 In January 2021, plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of 24 | Los Angeles. Not. of Removal § 8, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ property was damaged in the 25 | 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

1 | District of California, see generally Not. of Removal, and sought to transfer the case to this 2 | district, Mot. Transfer, ECF No. 10. Meanwhile, plaintiffs moved for remand, Mot. Remand, 3 | ECF No. 19, and leave to amend to clarify there was no federal question jurisdiction, Mot. Am. at 4 | 3, ECF No. 14-1. Plaintiffs then withdrew the motion because they learned “that some of the land 5 | affected by the subject fire includes tribal trust lands.” Withdrawal at 2, ECF No. 15. At hearing 6 | before the Central District judge, plaintiffs renewed their motion to amend. Order at 9, ECF 7 | No. 29. The court “denie[d] [p]laintiffs’ request for leave to amend,” id. at 10 n. 3, found there 8 | 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 10 | No. 36-1. Liberty Utilities opposes, Opp’n, ECF No. 38, and plaintiffs have replied, Reply, ECF 11 | 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 14 | amend] when justice so requires” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15’s policy of favoring 15 | 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 17 | faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 18 | amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of 19 | the amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’ ” See Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. 20 | Sonoma Cnity., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 21 | (1962)). 22 | Ill. ANALYSIS 23 Plaintiffs make clear they intend to remove reliance on any federal questions in their 24 | complaint, Mem. at 1, and subsequently move for remand, Reply at 5 n.2. Liberty Utilities argues 25 | the court should deny amendment under the law-of-the-case doctrine and because amendment 26 | would be futile. Opp’n at 2. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “‘when a court decides upon a 27 | rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the 28 | 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 2 | District Judge’s decision to deny leave to amend the complaint. /d. (“The . . . doctrine does not 3 | preclude a court from reassessing its own legal rulings . . . [it] applies most clearly where an issue 4 | has been decided by a higher court... .”). The court reconsiders the previous decision and opts 5 | to decide the motion to amend on the merit. Additionally, amendment would not be futile, even if 6 | 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. 9 | Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987)). Here, the court cannot say the proposed 10 | amendment would render the complaint clearly subject to dismissal. Liberty Utilities’ arguments 11 | are better raised in response to any forthcoming motion for remand. The court finds no basis for 12 | denying leave to amend at this stage. 13 | IV. CONCLUSION 14 The court grants plaintiffs’ motion. Any amended complaint shall be filed with 21 15 |] days. 16 This order resolves ECF No. 36. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: November 15, 2021.