Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 1 of 116
`
`No. 22-35000
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`v.
`THE CITY OF SEATTLE AND SEATTLE CITY LIGHT,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Washington
`No. 2:21-01014
`Hon. Barbara J. Rothstein
`
`
`APPELLEE’S ANSWERING BRIEF
`
`
` K&L GATES LLP
`Kari L. Vander Stoep
`Elizabeth Thomas
`Christina A. Elles
`925 Fourth Avenue
`Suite 2900
`Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
`Tel: +1 206 623 7580
`Fax: +1 206 623 7022
`Email: kari.vanderstoep@klgates.com
` liz.thomas@klgates.com
` christina.elles@klgates.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Appellee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 2 of 116
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................................................. 4
`
`III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES .............................................................................. 4
`
`IV. STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES ......................... 5
`
`V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................... 5
`
`A. The Federal Power Act .................................................................................. 5
`
`B. History of the Gorge Dam ............................................................................. 6
`
`C. Procedural History ......................................................................................... 9
`
`VI. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................10
`
`A. Standard of Review .....................................................................................10
`
`B. The District Court Correctly Determined Removal Was Proper ................13
`
`1. Sauk-Suiattle Presents a Substantial Federal Question on the Face of its
`Amended Complaint ........................................................................................13
`
`2. Alternatively, Sauk-Suiattle’s Washington Constitution, Washington
`Nuisance and Common Law Claims for Relief Raise Substantial Federal
`Questions ..........................................................................................................16
`
`C. After Denying Sauk-Suiattle’s Motion to Remand, the District Court
`Correctly Dismissed Sauk-Suiattle’s Amended Complaint as an Impermissible
`Collateral Attack on City Light’s FERC License ................................................25
`
`1. Federal Courts of Appeals Have Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Any
`Issue—Including Claims Under State Law—Related to City Light’s FERC
`License .............................................................................................................26
`
`2. The U.S. Court of Appeals Had Exclusive Jurisdiction over Challenges to
`City Light’s Existing FERC License ...............................................................30
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 3 of 116
`
`
`
`3. The District Court Did Not “Rely” on the Fisheries Settlement
`Agreement to Dismiss the Amended Complaint; the District Court Correctly
`Relied on Section 313 of the FPA to Dismiss Sauk-Suiattle’s Amended
`Complaint Challenging the 1995 Relicensing Order .......................................31
`
`D. Other Grounds Exist for Affirming the District Court’s Order Granting
`City Light’s Motion to Dismiss Sauk-Suiattle’s Amended Complaint in its
`Entirety .................................................................................................................32
`
`1. The Establishing Acts Do Not Provide a Cognizable Legal Theory for
`Relief Through Either the U.S. Supremacy Clause or Washington Constitution
`
` ..................................................................................................................33
`
`2. The FPA Preempts Sauk-Suiattle’s State Law Claims ............................42
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................46
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ...................................................................49
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................50
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................51
`
`ADDENDUM ..........................................................................................................52
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 4 of 116
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`American Bird Conservancy v. F.C.C.,
`545 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 28
`Andera v. Precision Fuel Components, LLC,
`C12-0274-JCC, 2012 WL 12509225 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ........................... 22–23
`Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
`901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................. 12
`Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler,
`710 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 12
`Bruskland v. Oak Theater, Inc.,
`42 Wn.2d 346, 254 P.2d 1035 (1953) ................................................................. 18
`Cal. Save Our Streams Council, Inc. v. Yeutter,
`887 F.2d 908 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................. 27
`California v. F.E.R.C.,
`495 U.S. 490 (1990) ........................................................................................ 6, 43
`Carrington v. City of Tacoma,
`276 F. Supp. 3d 1035 (W.D. Wash. 2017) .............. 18–19, 20–21, 23, 29, 42, 43
`Carter v. Evans,
`Case No. 20-55952, 2022 WL 989363 (9th Cir. 2022) ................................ 10, 16
`City of Oakland v. BP PLC,
`969 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................. 14, 19, 20
`City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma,
`357 U.S. 320 (1958) ................................................................3, 27, 29, 30, 31, 47
`First Iowa Hydro-Electric Coop. v. Fed. Power Cmm’n.,
`328 U.S. 152 (1946) ...................................................................................... 43, 44
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 5 of 116
`
`
`
`Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,
`463 U.S. 1 (1983) .......................................................................................... 11, 13
`Funderburk v. S.C. Elec. & Gas Co.,
`179 F. Supp. 3d 569 (D.S.C. 2016) .................................................................... 21
`Hornish v. King Cty.,
`899 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 17, 19
`Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC,
`136 S.Ct. 1288 (2016) ................................................................................... 45, 46
`Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Kent,
`909 F.3d 272 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 11, 19
`Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
`511 U.S. 375 (1994) ............................................................................................ 11
`McCarthy v. United States,
`850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 12
`Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior,
`26 F.4th 794 (9th Cir. 2022) ............................................................................... 11
`North Carolina v. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 16
`Orellana v. Mayorkas,
`6 F.4th 1034 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................... 12, 33
`Otwell v. Alabama Power Co.,
`944 F.Supp.2d 1134 (N.D. Ala. 2013), aff’d by Otwell v. Alabama
`Power Co., 747 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2014) ....................................................... 29
`Pub. Watchdogs v. S. California Edison Co., Inc.,
`984 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................. 28, 30, 31
`Retail Prop. Tr. v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.,
`768 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 22, 23
`Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer,
`373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 12
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 6 of 116
`
`
`
`Sayles Hydro Assocs. v. Maughan,
`985 F.2d 451 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................ 42–43
`Scenic Hudson Pres. Conference v. Callaway,
`370 F. Supp. 162 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), aff'd, 499 F.2d 127 (2d Cir.
`1974) ................................................................................................................... 40
`Schnabel v. Lui,
`302 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 10
`SEC v. McCarthy,
`322 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 35
`Sherr v. S.C. Elec. & Gas Co.,
`180 F. Supp. 3d 407 (D.S.C. 2016) .................................................................... 21
`Southwest Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. FERC,
`967 F. Supp. 1166 (D. Ariz. 1997) ..................................................................... 27
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................. 12–13, 41
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 12
`Tiegs v. Watts,
`135 Wn.2d 1, 954 P.2d 877 (1998) ..................................................................... 18
`Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty.,
`487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 12, 41
`Ventress v. Japan Airlines,
`747 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 42
`White v. Lee,
`227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 12
`Williams Nat. Gas Co. v. City of Oklahoma City,
`890 F.2d 255 (10th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................... 27, 29
`Zuress v. Donley,
`606 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 11
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 7 of 116
`
`
`
`Statutes
`16 U.S.C. § 797 ........................................................................................................ 45
`16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(1) ..................................................................................... 6, 43, 44
`16 U.S.C. § 811 ........................................................................................ 6, 40, 43, 44
`16 U.S.C. § 821 ........................................................................................................ 44
`16 U.S.C. § 823 ........................................................................................................ 40
`16 U.S.C. § 825l ................................................................ 3, 6, 10, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31
`18 U.S.C. §§ 791–823(g) ......................................................................................... 46
`18 U.S.C. §§ 824 et seq. ........................................................................................... 45
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 .................................................................................................. 4, 10
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ............................................................................................ 4, 11, 13
`28 U.S.C. § 1367 ............................................................................................ 4, 16, 42
`28 U.S.C. § 1441 ................................................................................................ 11, 16
`RCW 7.48.160 .......................................................................................................... 18
`RCW 77.57.030 ........................................................................................................ 39
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ......................................................................................... 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ............................................................................ 9, 11, 12, 31
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ...................................................................... 9, 12, 37, 41, 42
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ............................................................................................ 11
`U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2 ......................................................................................... 14
`Wash. Const. Art. XXVII, § 2 .................................................. 17, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 8 of 116
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`I.
`This Court should affirm the district court’s Order Denying Appellant Sauk-
`
`Suiattle Indian Tribe’s (“Sauk-Suiattle”) Motion for Remand because Appellee
`
`The City of Seattle and Seattle City Light1 (“City Light”) properly removed this
`
`case from Washington state superior court to the Western District of Washington.
`
`ER-3. This Court also should affirm the district court’s Order Granting City
`
`Light’s Motion to Dismiss, which disposed of Sauk-Suiattle’s claims in their
`
`entirety as impermissible collateral attacks on City Light’s Federal Energy
`
`Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) hydroelectric license. ER-11. Sauk-Suiattle’s
`
`Amended Complaint challenges the continued “presence and operation” of City
`
`Light’s Gorge Dam, one of three dams comprising the Skagit River Hydroelectric
`
`Project (the “Project”), because it does not have fish passage facilities (sometimes
`
`referred to as “fishways”). Sauk-Suiattle alleges violations of (i) the federal
`
`Supremacy Clause, (ii) the Congressional Acts of August 14, 1848, ch. 177, 9 Stat.
`
`323, and March 2, 1853, ch. 90, 10 Stat. 172, from when Oregon and Washington
`
`were territories (“Establishing Acts”), (iii) the Washington Constitution, and (iv)
`
`Washington nuisance and common law. ER-31.
`
`The district court correctly concluded that removal of Sauk-Suiattle’s
`
`
`1 Seattle City Light is not a separate entity from The City of Seattle. Rather, Seattle
`City Light is a d/b/a name for The City of Seattle’s City Light Department.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 9 of 116
`
`
`
`Amended Complaint from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the
`
`County of Skagit (“Skagit County Superior Court”) was proper because the
`
`“[A]mended [C]omplaint, on its face, does indeed raise a number of federal
`
`questions.” ER 7. The district court held Sauk-Suiattle’s “Supremacy Clause claim
`
`raises a substantial and disputed federal issue sufficient to establish this Court’s
`
`jurisdiction.” Id. Moreover, because the Amended Complaint’s claims cite, rely
`
`upon, and require interpretation of the federal Establishing Acts, Sauk-Suiattle’s
`
`“federal constitutional and statutory claims—raising not only substantial, but
`
`pivotal federal issues apparent on the face of the complaint—provide an adequate
`
`basis to assert [the district court’s] jurisdiction.” ER 9. Furthermore, even if this
`
`Court were to agree with Sauk-Suiattle that its Amended Complaint’s reliance on
`
`the federal Supremacy Clause and federal Establishing Acts somehow does not
`
`involve substantial and disputed federal issues sufficient to confer subject matter
`
`jurisdiction on the district court, this Court can affirm the Order Denying
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand on alternative grounds. Sauk-Suiattle’s Washington
`
`Constitution claim requires interpretation of the federal Establishing Acts, and
`
`Sauk-Suiattle’s nuisance and common law claims necessarily raise substantial and
`
`disputed federal issues under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.
`
`(“FPA”), and City Light’s FERC hydropower license.
`
`The district court also correctly granted City Light’s Motion to Dismiss,
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 10 of 116
`
`
`
`holding that Sauk-Suiattle’s federal Supremacy Clause, federal Establishing Acts,
`
`Washington Constitution, and Washington nuisance and common law claims are
`
`impermissible collateral attacks on City Light’s 1995 FERC hydropower license
`
`for the Project. ER-11. Sauk-Suiattle’s exclusive avenue for challenging City
`
`Light’s continued operation of the Project without fish passage was to file an
`
`appeal of the Project’s FERC license in the federal courts of appeals as required by
`
`Section 313 of the FPA, which should have occurred more than 25 years ago. ER-
`
`22–23; 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b). Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in City
`
`of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 336 (1958), the district court
`
`held that all of Sauk-Suiattle’s federal and state law claims are “inescapably
`
`intertwined” with the Project’s 1995 FERC license because the injunction that
`
`Sauk-Suiattle “seeks would prohibit the Gorge Dam from operating as the FERC
`
`license currently in place plainly allows and requires[.]” ER-23–24.
`
`Even if this Court concludes that Sauk-Suiattle’s claims are not
`
`impermissible collateral attacks over which the district court (or any court) does
`
`not have jurisdiction, this Court can affirm dismissal on alternative grounds. First,
`
`the federal Establishing Acts do not apply to hydropower projects in Washington,
`
`and therefore are not applicable to the Project through either the U.S. Supremacy
`
`Clause or the Washington Constitution. Second, Sauk-Suiattle’s Washington
`
`Constitution and state nuisance and common law claims are preempted by the
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 11 of 116
`
`
`
`FPA.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`II.
`After Sauk-Suiattle filed suit against City Light in Skagit County Superior
`
`Court, City Light removed Sauk-Suiattle’s Amended Complaint to district court on
`
`July 29, 2021. ER-38. The district court had jurisdiction over Sauk-Suiattle’s
`
`federal Supremacy Clause and Establishing Acts claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
`
`and supplemental jurisdiction over Sauk-Suiattle’s Washington Constitution and
`
`Washington nuisance and common law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The
`
`district court entered final judgment on December 2, 2021. ER-11. Sauk-Suiattle
`
`filed a notice of appeal on December 31, 2021, which was timely under Fed. R.
`
`App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). ER-84. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`Did the district court rule correctly in denying Sauk-Suiattle’s Motion
`
`1.
`
`to Remand the Amended Complaint back to state court because the Amended
`
`Complaint presented federal questions on its face?
`
`2.
`
`Alternatively, should this Court affirm the district court’s order
`
`denying remand because other grounds in the record support the conclusion that
`
`Sauk-Suiattle’s Washington Constitution, nuisance, and common law claims
`
`necessarily raise substantial and disputed federal issues under the Establishing
`
`Acts, the FPA, and City Light’s FERC hydropower license sufficient to establish
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 12 of 116
`
`
`
`jurisdiction in the district court?
`
`3.
`
`Next, did the district court rule correctly in dismissing Sauk-Suiattle’s
`
`Amended Complaint because all of Sauk-Suiattle’s claims are impermissible
`
`collateral attacks on City Light’s FERC license, which should have been pursued
`
`exclusively in the federal courts of appeals over 25 years ago?
`
`4.
`
`Alternatively, should this Court affirm the district court’s dismissal
`
`because other grounds in the record support City Light’s assertion that none of
`
`Sauk-Suiattle’s claims present cognizable legal theories for relief based on the fact
`
`that:
`
`a.
`
`Sauk-Suiattle’s arguments regarding the Establishing Acts do
`
`not apply to hydropower projects in Washington, and therefore are not
`
`applicable to the Project through either the U.S. Supremacy Clause or the
`
`Washington Constitution?
`
`b.
`
`Sauk-Suiattle’s Washington Constitution and Washington
`
`nuisance and common law claims are preempted by the FPA?
`
`IV. STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES
`All pertinent statutory and constitutional authorities appear in the Addendum
`
`to this brief, which is appended hereto.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`V.
`A. The Federal Power Act
`The FPA establishes a “broad federal role in the development and licensing
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 13 of 116
`
`
`
`of hydroelectric power” projects utilizing the navigable waters or located on
`
`certain lands of the United States. California v. F.E.R.C., 495 U.S. 490, 496
`
`(1990). A FERC license imposes conditions on the operator of a hydroelectric
`
`project to ensure “the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish.”
`
`See 16 U.S.C. § 803(a)(1). Section 18 of the FPA requires FERC to order a
`
`licensee to construct, maintain, and operate fishways if prescribed by either the
`
`federal Secretary of Commerce or the Interior. See id. § 811.
`
`Section 313 of the FPA establishes the procedure a party must follow to seek
`
`redress when it is aggrieved by an order issued by FERC. See 16 U.S.C. § 825l. An
`
`aggrieved party has 30 days to request rehearing. See id. § 825l(a). After FERC has
`
`ruled on the request for rehearing, the aggrieved party has 60 days to petition for
`
`review to “the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or
`
`public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of
`
`business … [or] the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia[.]”
`
`See id. § 825l(b). Section 313 of the FPA specifically provides that the United
`
`States Courts of Appeals have “exclusive” jurisdiction “to affirm, modify, or set
`
`aside” FERC’s orders. Id.
`
`B. History of the Gorge Dam
`The Project has operated since the early 1920s. See SER-101. In 1927,
`
`FERC’s predecessor agency, the Federal Power Commission, licensed the Project
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 14 of 116
`
`
`
`for 50 years. Id. Sauk-Suiattle has availed itself of FERC’s pervasive jurisdiction
`
`over the Project since at least 1978, entering into a 1981 settlement agreement with
`
`City Light that established a flow regime and required flow-related fishery studies.
`
`SER-149–55. Sauk-Suiattle expressly accepted the conditions that FERC imposed
`
`on its approval of the settlement. SER-146–48.
`
`Approximately ten years later, in the proceeding on City Light’s application
`
`for a new license to replace the expired 1927 license, City Light, Sauk-Suiattle,
`
`and others reached multiple settlement agreements, resolving “all issues related to
`
`[P]roject operation[s], fisheries, wildlife, recreation and aesthetics, erosion control,
`
`archaeological and historic resources, and traditional cultural properties.” SER-
`
`101, 103, 105. In particular, in 1991, Sauk-Suiattle signed onto the over-arching
`
`Offer of Settlement and the Fisheries Settlement Agreement. SER-103, 105. The
`
`Fisheries Settlement Agreement established City Light’s “obligations relating to
`
`fishery resources affected by the [P]roject, including numerous provisions to
`
`protect resident and migratory fish species.” SER-108. FERC subsequently
`
`adopted the settlement agreements, including the Fisheries Settlement Agreement,
`
`through the 1995 Relicensing Order, which authorized maintenance and operation
`
`of the Project for another 30 years. See SER-113–114, 126. For the duration of the
`
`license, the Fisheries Settlement Agreement “establishes [City Light’s] obligations
`
`relating to fishery resources affected by the [P]roject.” SER-108, 114.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 15 of 116
`
`
`
`Although the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior could have required
`
`that the 1995 license include construction, maintenance, and operation of fishways,
`
`those agencies chose not to require fishways. Instead they, along with the other
`
`settling parties, including Sauk-Suiattle, concurred “all issues concerning
`
`environmental impacts from relicensing of the Project, as currently constructed, are
`
`satisfactorily resolved[.]” SER-119. FERC, therefore, did not require City Light to
`
`construct and operate fishways at Gorge Dam, though FERC reserved its
`
`“authority to require fish passage in the future, should circumstances warrant” and
`
`“after notice and opportunity for hearing.” Id.2
`
`The 1995 Relicensing Order provided a 30-year license that will expire in
`
`2025. SER-126. Since early 2020, City Light has been engaged in a multi-year
`
`FERC process to obtain a new license. Numerous federal and state resource
`
`agencies, affected Tribes (including Sauk-Suiattle), and interested parties are
`
`actively involved and again, fisheries issues are an important part of the process.
`
`See SER-85–95. Sauk-Suiattle commented on several aspects of the proposed
`
`study plan, and the plan includes a study of the feasibility of fish passage at Gorge
`
`Dam. SER-89–95.
`
`
`2 In 2011, Sauk-Suiattle, City Light and other parties to the Fisheries Settlement
`Agreement revised it, but again did not require fishways. See SER-99.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 16 of 116
`
`
`
`Procedural History
`C.
`On June 30, 2021, Sauk-Suiattle filed a Summons and Complaint, as
`
`amended on July 27, 2021, in Skagit County Superior Court against City Light and
`
`its operation of the Gorge Dam (the “Amended Complaint”). ER-25. Sauk-
`
`Suiattle’s Amended Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that City Light’s
`
`“presence and operation” of the Gorge Dam without fish passage violates the
`
`federal Establishing Acts that allegedly prohibited the construction of dams
`
`without fishways, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the
`
`Washington Constitution, and Washington nuisance and common law, and seeks
`
`an injunction to require fish passage or to prohibit maintenance of the Gorge Dam.
`
`ER-31–32.
`
`On July 29, 2021, City Light filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court to
`
`remove the Amended Complaint from Skagit County Superior Court to the United
`
`States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle Division).
`
`ER-38. Sauk-Suiattle filed a Motion to Remand on July 29, 2021. ER-50.
`
`City Light filed a Motion for Dismissal Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
`
`12(b)(6) on August 5, 2021 (“Motion to Dismiss”). ER-63. City Light
`
`simultaneously filed a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion to
`
`Dismiss on August 5, 2021. Dkt.12. Sauk-Suiattle filed its response to City Light’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss the very next day, on August 6, 2021. SER-69–84. City Light
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 17 of 116
`
`
`
`filed its Opposition to Sauk-Suiattle’s Motion to Remand on August 19, 2021.
`
`SER-48–57. Also on August 19, 2021, City Light filed its Reply in Support of its
`
`Motion to Dismiss. SER-58–68.
`
`On August 24, 2021, Sauk-Suiattle filed its Reply in Support of its Motion
`
`to Remand. SER-37–47. On November 9, 2021, the district court entered an order
`
`denying Sauk-Suiattle’s Motion to Remand. ER-3–10.
`
`Oral argument on City Light’s Motion to Dismiss was heard on November
`
`17, 2021. See ER-89; see also SER-4–36. On December 2, 2021, the district court
`
`granted City Light’s Motion to Dismiss and held that it lacked subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over Sauk-Suiattle’s claims because Section 313 of the FPA grants
`
`federal appellate courts, not district courts (nor state courts), exclusive jurisdiction
`
`over challenges to licenses issued by FERC. ER-84–85; 16 U.S.C. § 825l. Sauk-
`
`Suiattle timely filed a notice of appeal on December 31, 2021. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`VI. ARGUMENT
`Standard of Review
`A.
`“Removal presents a question of subject matter jurisdiction, which is
`
`reviewed de novo.” Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002). This
`
`Court may affirm a court’s decision to deny a motion to remand “on any basis
`
`supported by the record.” Carter v. Evans, Case No. 20-55952, 2022 WL 989363,
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 18 of 116
`
`
`
`*1 (9th Cir. 2022). A defendant may remove a case filed in state court to federal
`
`court over which a federal court would have jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
`
`Federal district courts have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where
`
`“plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.”
`
`Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)
`
`(emphasis in original); see also Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc. v. Kent, 909 F.3d
`
`272, 278 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[F]ederal question jurisdiction encompasses more than
`
`just federal causes of action. Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear ‘cases in
`
`which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause
`
`of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
`
`substantial question of federal law.’” (quoting Franchise Tax Board, 463 U.S. at
`
`27-28)).
`
`This Court reviews de novo dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
`
`under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(1), Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 26
`
`F.4th 794, 806 (9th Cir. 2022), and may affirm on any basis supported by the
`
`record. Zuress v. Donley, 606 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2010). Federal courts are
`
`courts of limited jurisdiction, and, as such, they possess only the power authorized
`
`to them by the Constitution or statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
`
`U.S. 375, 377 (1994). If a court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it
`
`must dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3). A defendant may
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 19 of 116
`
`
`
`move to dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(1) by mounting a facial or factual attack.
`
`See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). A facial attack “asserts the
`
`allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal
`
`jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).
`
`A factual attack challenges the truth of the allegations asserted. See id. The Court
`
`may rely on evidence extrinsic to the pleadings to resolve factual disputes
`
`concerning jurisdiction without a motion to dismiss converting to one for summary
`
`judgment. See McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988); see
`
`also Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler, 710 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1983).
`
`Dismissal for failure to assert a cognizable legal theory under Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`is also subject to de novo review. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,
`
`699 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended). This Court can affirm the dismissal of a
`
`complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) “upon any basis fairly supported by the record.”
`
`Orellana v. Mayorkas, 6 F.4th 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court may consider
`
`the “allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and
`
`matters properly subject to judicial notice.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756,
`
`763 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court must accept as true the complaint’s well-pled facts;
`
`however, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat
`
`an otherwise proper 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty., 487
`
`F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case: 22-35000, 05/04/2022, ID: 12438287, DktEntry: 20, Page 20 of 116
`
`
`
`988 (9th Cir. 2001).
`
`The District Court Correctly Determined