Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00374/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00374-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

SolarCity Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Salt River Project Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-00374-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 This case involves Plaintiff SolarCity Corporation’s ongoing challenge to 

Defendant Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District’s (the 

District) recent changes to its retail electricity rate structure. On October 27, 2015, the 

Court partially denied the District’s motion to dismiss, finding that SolarCity had 

adequately alleged its Sherman Act claim. (Doc. 77 at 19-21.) In ruling, the Court 

rejected three of the District’s defenses: absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01, 

immunity under the state action doctrine, and application of the filed-rate doctrine. (Id. at 

23-25.) On November 20, 2015, the District filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the 

Court’s Order, (Doc. 81), moved to certify those issues for appeal, (Doc. 82), and 

requested that the Court stay all further proceedings pending appeal, (Doc. 83). The 

Court denied the motion for certification, denied the motion to stay, and ordered the 

parties to complete discovery. (Doc. 102.) Discovery is now complete, and the District’s 

appeal is set for argument before the Ninth Circuit. 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-DLR Document 241 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The District has filed a renewed motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of 

its appeal, (Doc. 148), and SolarCity has filed a motion for preliminary injunction, two 

motions to seal, and a motion for leave to file excess pages, (Docs. 151, 152, 153, 161). 

The District has filed a cross-motion for leave to file excess pages and for a briefing 

schedule regarding SolarCity’s motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 167.) The 

motions are fully briefed, and neither party requested oral argument. For the reasons 

below, the District’s motion to stay is granted and the remaining motions are denied as 

moot. 

MOTION TO STAY 

 The District argues that a stay pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal is 

necessary because the appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction to rule on claims to which 

the appealed immunities and defenses apply. The District also argues that proceeding to 

trial on these issues risks wasting judicial resources because a Ninth Circuit decision in 

its favor could dispose of all of SolarCity’s claims. Alternatively, in the event the Court 

declines to issue a stay on jurisdictional grounds, the District argues the Court should 

exercise its discretion and stay the case because it would suffer irreparable harm if forced 

to proceed to trial. Given the current posture of the case, the Court agrees that a stay is 

necessary at this juncture because it lacks jurisdiction to decide the issues on appeal and 

proceeding in this case risks wasting judicial resources.1

 

 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance-it confers 

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those 

aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 

459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (emphasis added); see also City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa 

 

1

 In its previous order denying the District’s first motion to stay, the Court rejected the District’s argument for a discretionary stay. (Doc. 102 at 10-11.) The Court concluded that the District was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal because state action immunity did not protect the District’s conduct, fact issues precluded a determination of whether the District was absolutely immune under Arizona law, and the filed-rate doctrine did not apply to this case. (Id. at 3-9, 11.) The Court also found that 

the District failed to demonstrate irreparable harm absent a stay. (Id. at 11.) The Court 

stands by its prior decision, and thus the District’s renewed request for a discretionary stay is denied. 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-DLR Document 241 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he filing of a notice of 

interlocutory appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the particular issues 

involved in that appeal.”). At the same time, an interlocutory appeal “does not divest the 

trial court of jurisdiction to continue with other phases of the case” not related to the 

issues on appeal. Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Here, the issue before the Ninth Circuit is whether the District’s three defenses bar 

SolarCity’s claims as a matter of law. Oral argument is scheduled for November—the 

same month in which this case is set for trial. 

 An important factor in determining whether an interlocutory appeal divests the 

district court of jurisdiction over particular aspects of the case is whether the appeal has 

the potential to substantially affect the merits of the case. For example, in Melendres v. 

Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002-03 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit “applaud[ed]” the 

district court’s decision to proceed to trial notwithstanding the defendants’ interlocutory 

appeal of the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit 

noted that the appeal “affect[ed] the rights of the parties only until the district court 

renders judgments on the merits of the case[.]” Id. at 1003 (quoting Sports Form, Inc. v. 

United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2012)). The Ninth Circuit’s reversal 

of the district court’s grant of preliminary relief would not affect the ultimate disposition 

of the case. In other words, no matter the result of the appeal, the case would move 

forward given that preliminary relief is non-dispositive and there is no risk of inconsistent 

rulings on the merits. 

 The result is not the same here, where the Ninth Circuit’s ruling has the potential 

to substantially and permanently affect the rights of the parties. Discovery is complete 

and the parties are preparing to file summary judgment motions. The District will 

certainly raise the state action doctrine, immunity under Arizona law, and the filed-rate 

doctrine as defenses to SolarCity’s claims in its summary judgment brief or at trial. 

Indeed, in ruling on the first motion to stay, the Court noted that the District was free to 

raise these defenses at summary judgment. (Doc. 102 at 10 n.7.) These defenses are 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-DLR Document 241 Filed 09/20/16 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

potentially case dispositive, and are thus intertwined with the merits of SolarCity’s 

claims. The Court cannot rule on the merits of the case without addressing those 

defenses. As such, the Court will no longer be faced with “other phases of the case” over 

which it retains jurisdiction, such as discovery. Plotkin, 688 F.2d at 1293. Rather, it will 

be forced to consider “aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs, 459 U.S. at 

58. In addition, it would be an inefficient use of judicial resources for both this Court and 

the Ninth Circuit to consider the same issues simultaneously with the looming risk of 

inconsistent rulings. Consequently, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to rule 

on issues that will certainly be raised in the next phase of this litigation, and thus a stay 

pending resolution of the District’s interlocutory appeal is necessary.2

 

 SolarCity argues that a ruling by the Ninth Circuit in favor of the District on its 

defenses would only bar its damages claims, not its claim for prospective injunctive 

relief. (Doc. 173 at 14.) But the state action doctrine exempts state and local regulation 

from federal and state antitrust liability. Cost Mgmt. Servs, Inc. v. Wash. Nat. Gas Co., 

99 F.3d 937, 941 (9th Cir. 1996); Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 

602, 610 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding Arizona state law antitrust claims barred by state action 

doctrine). In addition, the filed-rate doctrine bars injunctive relief in the antitrust context. 

See Pub. Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty. v. Dynergy Power Mktg., Inc., 384 F.3d 

756, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2004). Last, the application of A.R.S. § 12-820.01 would bar 

SolarCity’s state law damages claims. Thus, a Ninth Circuit ruling in the District’s favor 

on all issues could dispose of all of SolarCity’s claims. 

 SolarCity argues that the issues pending before the two courts are different: this 

Court is charged with determining whether SolarCity “can prove the facts needed to 

establish the antitrust and tort merits,” while the Ninth Circuit is charged with 

 

2

 The District also argues a stay is necessary because, in the Ninth Circuit “where . . . the interlocutory claim is immediately appealable, its filing divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial.” Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(emphasis added). In denying the first motion to stay, however, the Court expressed serious doubts as to whether the issues were immediately appealable given that the Court did not render a final decision on the issues and the District was free to raise them again at summary judgment. (Doc. 102 at 10 n.7.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-DLR Document 241 Filed 09/20/16 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

determining whether the District’s defenses apply as a matter of law. (Doc. 173 at 13.) 

However, the Court cannot ignore the District’s defenses at summary judgment or trial. 

Proceeding to trial would place the Court in the untenable position of ruling on the 

District’s defenses while the Ninth Circuit is considering whether they bar SolarCity’s 

case completely, running the risk of wasting substantial resources of the Court and the 

parties. 

 In conclusion, given the posture of this case and the issues presented on appeal, 

the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over SolarCity’s claims. The issues on appeal are 

intertwined with the merits of this case and the result of the appeal could permanently 

affect the rights of the parties. To conserve judicial resources and mitigate the risk of 

inconsistent rulings, the Court stays this matter pending resolution of the District’s 

appeal. 

REMAINING MOTIONS

 SolarCity filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for leave to file 

excess pages. (Docs. 151, 153.) The District opposes the motion for leave to file excess 

pages and argues a motion for preliminary injunction is inappropriate at this time given 

the procedural posture of the case. (Doc. 167.) The Court agrees with the District. 

 The Court has already concluded that a stay is appropriate in this case given that 

the issues raised on appeal are potentially dispositive of SolarCity’s claims. The Court 

has serious doubts that it retains jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction, and even if 

it did, judicial economy cautions against granting preliminary relief in this case. A Ninth 

Circuit ruling in favor of the District would invalidate any preliminary relief, dispose of 

the entire case, and result in wasted resources of the Court and the parties. In addition, 

the appeal is set for argument in November, and thus a Ninth Circuit decision likely is 

imminent. Should the stay be lifted after resolution of the appeal, SolarCity may refile its 

motion if necessary. Accordingly, all three motions are denied as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED that the District’s motion to stay, (Doc. 148), is GRANTED. 

All further proceedings in this matter are stayed pending resolution of the District’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-DLR Document 241 Filed 09/20/16 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

interlocutory appeal before the Ninth Circuit. All deadlines in this matter are vacated. 

Upon resolution of the appeal, the parties shall contact the Court to schedule a status 

conference. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SolarCity’s motion for leave to file excess 

pages, (Doc. 151), SolarCity’s motion to seal, (Doc. 152), SolarCity’s motion to seal 

(Doc. 161), and the District’s motion for leave to file excess pages and for a briefing 

schedule, (Doc. 167), are DENIED. 

 Dated this 19th day of September, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-DLR Document 241 Filed 09/20/16 Page 6 of 6