N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN EADE; JAE EADE; HUM B OLDT W EST, INC .,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. TRES PINOS W ATER DISTR IC T; R OB ER T FR

USETTA; EDW

ARD SC HM IDT, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-15868 D.C . No. 5:16-c v-01414-NC
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 Nat ha na e l M . C ousins, M a gistra te Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 15, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , KLEINFELD, C irc uit Judge , a nd W U, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
NOV 15 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 Ge orge H. W

u, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.John a nd Ja e Ea de and Hum

boldt W e st, Inc
. (“ Landowne rs” ), a ppe a l from the d istric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of the c om pla int a ga inst Tre s Pinos W a t e r Distric t (“ Distric t” ) and two of its dire c tors, R obe rt Fruse tta and Edwa

rd Sc hm idt, for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. W e a ffirm . B e c a u se the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the history of this c a se , we ne e d

not re c ount it he re . W e re vie w a n orde r of dism issa l for unripe ne ss de nov o , Hoe h n e v . C ty . of San Be nito , 870 F.2d 529, 531 (9th C ir. 1989), a nd we m ay

a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by

the re c ord, ASARC O LLC v . Union Pac . R.R. C

o. , 765 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th C ir. 2014). The La ndowne rs’ c la i m s a ga inst theDistric t for re fusing wa te r se rvic e
c onne c tions a

re not ripe be c a

use the re ha s ne ithe r be e n a re que st nor de nia l of
wate r se rvic e . W

illiamson C

ty . Re g’l Planning C

omm’n v

. Hamilton Bank , 473 U.S. 172, 190–91 (1985). The La ndowne rs a

rgue tha t be c a use the Distric t ha s not
re voke d a wate r m oratorium

e na c te d in 1989, a

nd re -e na c t e d in 1999, the Distric t ha s e ffe c t ive ly de n ie d the ir pe rm it. Howe ve r, “ [t] h e m e re e xiste nc e of a sta tute , whic h m a y or m a y not e ve r be a

pplie d to pla intiffs, is not suffic ie nt to c re a te a c a se
or c ontrove rsy

within the

m e aning of Artic le III.” Ac tion Apartment Ass’n, Inc . v . Santa Monic a Re nt C

ontrol Bd. , 509 F.3d 1020, 1027-28 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Stoianoff v. State

of Mont. , 695 F.2d 1214, 1223 (9th C ir. 1983)) (inte rna l quota t ions omitte d). The futility e x c e ption doe s not a

pply be c a use the Distric t did
2gran t the La

n downe rs a c onditional pe rm i t a nd ha s grante d othe r pe rm its to others. Thus, on this re c ord, the c la im s tha t the Distric t ha s unc onstitutiona l ly de nie d the m
wate r se rvic e is not ripe , a nd we la c k jurisdic tion ove r the se c l a im s. The c la im s tha

t the Distric t, a

nd Fruse tta

and Sc hm idt, unc onstitutiona lly oppose d the de ve lopm e nt proje c t be fore the San B e nito Pla nning C om

m ission,
a ppe a le d the C om

m ission’ s de c ision, a

nd im p rope rly te stifie d be fore the San B e nito B o ard of Supe rvisors is ba rre d by the N oe rr-Pe nnington doc t

rine . The N oe rr-Pe nnington doc trine de rive s from the First Am e ndm e nt’ s gua ran te e of “ the right of thepe ople . . . to pe t i tion theGove rnm e n t for a re d re ss of grie v anc e s.” U.S. C onst. a

m e nd. I. Unde r the N

oe r r-Pe nnington doc t

rine , those who pe tition a gove rnm e nta l e n tity

for re dre s s a

re ge n e ra l ly

im m une from lia b ility for the ir pe titioning c onduc t. K

e arne y v . Fole y & Lardne r

, LLP, 590 F.3d 638, 644 (9th C ir. 2009); Empre

ss LLC v . C ity & C ty . of S.F. , 419 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th C ir. 2000). The que s tion of whe the r the San B e nito B oa rd of Supe rvisors (“ B oa

rd” ) im prope rly de nie d the La

ndowne rs’ propose d de v e lopm e nt proje c t is not be fore us. Ne ithe r San B e nito C ounty nor the B oa

rd is a pa rty to this litiga

t ion, a nd the Landowne rs m ake no a lle gations in this c a se c onc e rning the spe c ific de n ia l of the de ve lopm e nt proje c t by t

he B oa rd. The re fore , we ne e d not de c ide whe the r the

3filing of a

sta te writ of m an dam

us from the B oa rds’ de c ision wa s re q

uire d to
e sta blish thefina lity

of tha t de c ision unde r W

illiamson
. Give n our re solution of this a ppe a l, we ne e d

not–a nd do not–de c ide any othe r issue s pre se nte d b y

this c a se , inc luding whe the r the La ndowne rs ha

ve a
c ogniz a ble prope rty

inte re st to sta

te a c la im unde r the Due Proc e ss C la use . Se e , e .g., Bank

of Am. N at. Tr. &Sav . Ass'n v . Summe rland C ty . W ate r Dist. , 767 F.2d 544, 548 (9th C ir. 1985) (holding tha t pote n tia l wate r use is not a prope rty inte re st unde r C a lifornia

la w a nd, the re fore , c ould not give rise to a c la im of de priva

tion of due proc e ss). AFFIRM E D.

4