Court Opinion

ID: 9890610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:01:26.757476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:35.482834
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                            FILED
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                            OCT 13 2023
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BAKER RANCHES, INC.; et al.,                     No.   22-15765

              Plaintiffs-Appellees,              D.C. No.
                                                 3:21-cv-00150-GMN-CSD
 v.

DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity            MEMORANDUM*
as Secretary of the United States
Department of the Interior; et al.,

              Defendants-Appellants.

BAKER RANCHES, INC.; et al.,                     No.   22-15846

              Plaintiffs-Appellants,             D.C. No.
                                                 3:21-cv-00150-GMN-CSD
 v.

DEB HAALAND, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the United States
Department of the Interior; et al.,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                     Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted October 4, 2023
                          University of Nevada Las Vegas

Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,** District
Judge.

      The government appeals the district court’s order granting the motion of

Baker Ranches, Inc. (Baker Ranches) and the other Plaintiffs to remand to Nevada

state court their lawsuit alleging that the government violated its water rights under

the Baker-Lehman Decree. In its cross-appeal, Baker Ranches asserts that the

district court abused its discretion in denying its request for attorney’s fees and

costs. We vacate the district court’s decision to remand the action to state court,

but affirm the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs.

      We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)1, and we review de novo the

district court’s remand of Baker Ranches’ action to state court. See City & Cnty. of

Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 39 F.4th 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2022). We review the

district court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for an

      **
            The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
      1
          Baker Ranches’ contention that we lack jurisdiction to review the district
court’s order remanding its action to state court is foreclosed by our precedent. See
Friedenberg v. Lane Cnty., 68 F.4th 1113, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2023).
                                            2
abuse of discretion. See Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065

(9th Cir. 2008).

      The district court properly recognized that the doctrine of prior exclusive

jurisdiction applies “when a court of competent jurisdiction has obtained

possession, custody, or control of particular property.” United States v. PetroSaudi

Oil Servs. (Venezuela) Ltd., 70 F.4th 1199, 1208 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted)

(emphasis added); see also State Eng’r of Nev. v. S. Fork Band of the Te-Moak

Tribe of the W. Shoshone Indians of Nev., 339 F.3d 804, 809-10 (9th Cir. 2003).

However, the district court did not address whether the government had sovereign

immunity from suit, which would deprive the state court of jurisdiction over Baker

Ranches’ action. If “the record contains no evidence that [the government] waived

its sovereign immunity,” then “the Nevada state court lacked jurisdiction over the

action.” Cox v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 800 F.3d 1031, 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) (per

curiam) (citation omitted). “Accordingly, under the derivative jurisdiction

doctrine, the district court [would] also lack[ ] jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted).

      “The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, waives the United States’

sovereign immunity for the limited purpose of allowing the Government to be

joined as a defendant in a state adjudication or administration of water rights. . . .”

In re Klamath Irrigation Dist., 69 F.4th 934, 942 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation,

                                            3
alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). However, it does not “expand a

state court’s subject matter jurisdiction or empower a state to adjudicate rights

beyond its jurisdiction.” Id.

      Because the district court decision does not address whether the government

waived its sovereign immunity under the McCarran Amendment relative to the

specific claims alleged by Baker Ranches, we vacate and remand for the district

court to conduct this analysis in the first instance. In addition to any other relevant

issues, the district court should decide: (1) whether Baker Ranches’ claims

actually involve the administration of water rights as contemplated by the

McCarran Amendment; (2) whether the government’s sovereign immunity is

impacted by its alleged reserved water rights or its decreed water rights under the

Baker-Lehman Decree that are not at issue in Baker Ranches’ action; and (3)

whether the proceedings resulting in the Baker-Lehman Decree constituted a

complete adjudication for purposes of the McCarran Amendment of the water

rights at issue in Baker Ranches’ action.

      Due to the plausible jurisdictional challenges raised by the government, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baker Ranches’ request for

attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the government did

not “lack[ ] an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Chan

                                            4
Healthcare Grp., PS v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 844 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir.

2017) (citation omitted).

      The panel retains jurisdiction over any future appeals in this matter.

      AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.

                                          5