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

Tisha Castillo, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

George Harry Johnson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04688-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to certify question to the Arizona Supreme 

Court, which is fully briefed. (Docs. 127, 130, 133.) For the following reasons, the Court 

will deny Defendants’ motion.1 

I. Background

On November 15, 2018, George Johnson, Johnson Utilities LLC (“Johnson 

Utilities”), Johnson International Inc. (“Johnson International”), and James Norton 

(collectively the “Bribery Defendants”) moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint as barred 

by the filed rate doctrine. (Doc. 78.) On September 5, 2019, the Court denied Bribery 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 120.) In its decision, the Court noted a lack of 

Arizona precedent adopting or rejecting the filed rate doctrine, but declined to certify the 

question whether Arizona had, indeed, adopted a version of the filed rate doctrine to the 

 

1 Defendants’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues are adequately 

briefed and oral argument will not help the Court resolve the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

78(b); LRCiv. 7.2(f); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d 

724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). 
- 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

Arizona Supreme Court, concluding that it could resolve Bribery Defendants’ motion 

without answering the question. (Id. at 6-9.) The Court explained that, even if Arizona 

had adopted a filed rate doctrine, it would not apply here because the Commission 

repudiated the doctrine when it disclaimed authority to regulate conduct identical to that 

challenged in Plaintiffs’ complaint in Delton Munday, et al., ACC Docket No. WD02987A-17-0192. (Id. at 9-11.) On September 26, 2019, Defendants filed their motion to 

certify question to the Arizona Supreme Court, asking the Court to reconsider its decision 

not to certify the filed rate question. (Doc. 127.) Particularly, Defendants request the Court 

to certify the following question to the Arizona Supreme Court: “Whether Arizona law 

precludes a Court from hearing a claim by a rate payor that a utility’s rates were set too 

high because of the utility bribing a Commissioner.” (Id.) Defendants’ motion is ripe. 

II. Legal Standard

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere 

disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong 

v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). A motion for 

reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing 

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 

reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). Further, the motion must “point out with specificity 

the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any 

new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they 

were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court’s 

Order.” Id. Finally, “[n]o motion for reconsideration . . . may repeat any oral or written 

argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in 

the Order.” Id. The court may deny a motion for reconsideration if it fails to comply with 

these rules. Id.

III. Discussion

In its motion, Defendants urge that the Court “could” and “should” certify their 
- 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

proposed question to the Arizona Supreme Court. (Doc. 127.) The Court thoroughly 

considered the appropriateness of certifying a filed rate doctrine question to the Arizona 

Supreme Court when ruling on the Bribery Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 120 at 

6-11.) It determined in its discretion that certification was not proper. See Smith v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 202 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1064 (D. Ariz. 2002). Defendants have made no showing 

that the Court’s determination was manifestly erroneous, have presented no new facts, and 

have produced no new legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention 

earlier with reasonable diligence to justify its request. The Court stands by its prior 

determination. 

Particularly, the Court concluded that it need not determine whether Arizona had 

adopted a version of the filed rate doctrine because, even had it done so, the doctrine would

not bar jurisdiction here considering the Commission disclaimed jurisdiction over all issues

raised in Plaintiffs’ complaint in its Munday decision, thereby repudiating application of

any filed rate doctrine to this case. (Id. at 9-11 (citing Doc. 96-1).)2 Defendants now assert 

that the Court’s conclusion would be sound had the Commission also disclaimed its 

jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of the utility’s rate. (Doc. 127 at 5.) However, 

as the Court explained in its order denying Bribery Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 

120 at 11), the reasonableness of Johnson Utility’s rate is not at issue in this case. Rather, 

Plaintiffs are challenging the Bribery Defendants’ conduct in inducing the setting of a 

higher rate base.3 Thus, the Commission disclaimed jurisdiction over the claims asserted

by Plaintiffs, despite maintaining jurisdiction over the issue of whether the utility’s rate 

was reasonable in Munday. Consequently, any potential filed rate doctrine would be 

inapplicable here, and certification of a file rate doctrine question to the Arizona Supreme 

 

2 Defendants assert, without authority and in the face of contrary Ninth Circuit 

authority, Carlin v. DairyAm., Inc., 705 F.3d 856, 868 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Verizon Del., 

Inc. v. Convad Commc’ns Co., 377 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2004)), that the Commission 

cannot repudiate the filed rate doctrine. (Doc. 133 at 2-3.) The Court rejects this argument. 

3 Defendants’ proposed question to the Arizona Supreme Court—which describes 

the issue to be whether the “utility’s rates were set too high”—mischaracterizes the nature 

of Plaintiffs’ claims. (Doc. 127 at 1.) Thus, even if the Court were to certify a filed rate 

doctrine question to the state supreme court, which it will not, it would not certify 

Defendants’ proposed question. 
- 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

Court would be inappropriate.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to certify question to the Arizona 

Supreme Court (Doc. 127) is DENIED. 

Dated this 13th day of December, 2019.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge