N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEPHEN SC HM ID,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. SONOM A C L EAN POW ER , a public a ge nc y ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-17288 D.C . No. 4:14-c v-02949-JSW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 11, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

n d M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ERIC KSON, * * Distric t Judge
. Ste phe n

Sc hm id a ppe a l s the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r dism issing without le ave to a m e nd his c om

pla int brought pursua

nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c ha lle n ging the



# FIL ED JAN 23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble R a lph R . Eric kson, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of North Da

kota , sitting by

de signa tion.proc e d

ure use d by

Sonom a C le an Powe r Authority

for a utom atic a lly e nrolling
e le c tric i ty c ustom e rs. W e a ffirm
. Sc hm id’ s First Am e ndm e nt c la im s for c om pe lle d c ontribution to spe e c h a nd
c om pe lle d a ssoc iation or disa ssoc iation fa il be c a use he ha s not be e n c o m

pe lle d to do a nything. W

he n SC PA be c a

m e a se c ond e le c t

ric ity se lle r in Sonom a

C ounty to supple m e nt the m onopoly pre viously

he ld by Pa c ific Ga s & Ele c tric , the de fa ult polic y wa s to e nroll c onsum e rs in SC PA’ s se rvic e inste a d of PG& E’ s se rvic e . Se e C a l. Pub. Util. C ode § 366.2(c )(2). SC PA’ s c ustom e rs a re pe rm itte d to switc h to PG& E’ s se rvic e at a

ny tim e by c a lling a

toll-fre e te le p hone num

be r or by visiting a
we bsite , a lthough they

m ay be c ha

rge d a n a dm i nistra

tive fe e if the y

switc h a fte r having be e n e nrolle d in SC PA’ s se rvic e for m ore tha n sixty da y s . C a l. Pub. Util. C ode § 366.2(c )(13). C ustom e rs we re inform e d of the i r c hoic e s twic e in the two
m onths pre c e ding a

nd twic e in the two m onths following the a utom at ic e nrollm e nt. C a l. Pub. Util. C ode § 366.2(c )(15)(A). Unlike the la

bor union politic a l c ontribution a rran ge m e nt the Supre m e C ourt disa pprove d in K

nox v . Se rv ic e Employ e e

s Inte rnational Union , 132 S. C t. 2277, 2296 (2012), SC PA’ s e nrollm e nt sy ste m doe s not re quire Sc hm id to opt out
m ultipletim e s in a

singley e ar to a

v oid pa y i ng for SC PA’ s se rvic e s. He ne e d not
e ve n opt out on a

n a nnua l ba sis. C

f. id. at 2296 n.9. Rathe r, if he opts out onc e , he
2will be e nrolle d in PG& E’ s se rvic e , a nd he will re m a in e nrolle d in tha t se rvic e , e ve n if he m ove s e lse whe re in Sonom a C ounty . C a l . Pub. Util. C ode § 366.2(c )(2). Ac c ordingly , Sc hm id ha s not be e n c om pe lle d to giveany

m one y to SC PA, and he ha s the re fore not be e n c om p e lle d to subsidiz e SC PA’ s spe e c h. For the sa m e re a s on, he ha s not be e n c om pe lle d to a ssoc iate with SC PA or disa ssoc iate from PG& E. C f. Morrow

v . State Bar of C alifornia , 188 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th C ir. 1999). Sc hm id’ s Fourte e nt h Am e ndm e nt e c onom ic substa ntive due proc e ss c la im
a lso fa ils. “ [T] he ve ne ra

ble m a xim deminimis non c urat le x ” instruc ts tha

t “ the la w c are s not for trifle s.” W is. De p’t of Re v e nuev . W

i lliam W rigle y , J r., C o. , 505 U.S. 214, 231 (1992). Eve n if the a utom atic e nrollm e nt provision were a re a l de priva tion of Sc hm id’ s libe rty

inte re st in c ontra c ting with PG& E , the provision

“ m ust only pa ss rationa l ba sis re vie w: the sta tute m ust be ba se d

on ‘ a le gitim ate le gisla tive purpose furthe re d by rationa l m e ans.’ ” C

ampane lli v . Allstate LifeIns. C o. , 322 F.3d 1086, 1100 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting Ge n. Motors C orp. v . Rome in , 503 U.S. 181, 191 (1992)). The gove rnm e nt’ s goa ls in e sta blishing the

fram e work within whic h SC PA ope rate s— re duc ing gre e nhouse ga s e m issions, providing
e le c tric i ty at a c o m pe titivec ost, re duc ing e ne rgy c onsum ption, a nd prom oting ra

te sta bility , e ne rgy

se c urity , a

nd e ne rgy re lia bility through loc a l c ontrol— are
3le gitim ate le gisla t ive purpose s. Se e J

e nse n Family

Farms, Inc
. v . Monte re

y Bay Unifie d Air Pollution C

o ntrol Dist. , 644 F.3d 934, 943 (9th C i r. 2011); Mountain W ate r C o. v . Mont. De

p ’t of Pub. Serv . Re

gulation , 919 F.2d 593, 598 (9th C ir. 1990). For SC PA to a c c om plish its purpose s, c ustom e rs m ust purc ha se the ir
e le c tric i ty from SC PA. Autom atic a lly

e nrolling c ustom e rs in SC PA is a rationa l
m e ans to c re ate an a de q

u ate c ustom e r ba se for SC PA and the re by a dva nc e the gove rnm e nt’ s le gitim ate purpose s. Se e C a mpane lli , 322 F.3d a

t 1100. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing le ave to a m e nd on the g rounds tha

t it would ha

ve be e n futile for Sc hm id to a m e nd his c om

plia nt. Se e Le adsinge r, Inc
. v . BMG Music Publ’g , 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th C ir. 2008). AFFIRM E D.

4