Public Watchdogs v. Southern California Edison Co., No. 19-56531 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Orders Review Act, frequently referred to as the Hobbs Act. Because the scope of the Hobbs Act must be read broadly, the Hobbs Act thus encompasses not only all final NRC orders in licensing proceedings, but all NRC decisions that are preliminary, ancillary, or incidental to those licensing proceedings.
The panel concluded that plaintiff's action fell squarely within the scope of the Hobbs Act because plaintiff's complaint challenges final orders of the NRC related to licensing, NRC enforcement decisions related to NRC licenses and certifications, and conduct licensed or certified by the NRC. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.
Court Description: Hobbs Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Orders Review Act, frequently referred to as the Hobbs Act. Under the Hobbs Act, courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of all final orders of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission made reviewable by section 2239 of title 42. Section 2239 also provides for Hobbs Act review of “[a]ny final order entered in any proceeding,” 42 U.S.C. § 2239(b)(1), “for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of any license . . . and in any proceeding for the issuance or modification of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees,” id. § 2239(a)(1)(A). * The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. PUBLIC WATCHDOGS V. S. CAL. EDISON 3 Plaintiff-Appellant Public Watchdogs, a non-profit corporation advocating for public safety, brought an action against the NRC and others alleging claims related to the decommissioning of two nuclear generating units at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). In 2015, after the units ceased operating, the NRC approved changes to the Facility Operating Licenses by amending the licensing agreements with Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company. The 2015 License Amendments required the utility defendants to take actions necessary to decommission the plants and continue to maintain the facility, including the storage, control and maintenance of the spent nuclear fuel, in a safe condition. As part of the decommissioning plan, the utility defendants elected to use private defendant Holtec International’s HI- STORM UMAX Canister Storage System (“Holtec System”), a canister-based spent nuclear fuel storage system that had been approved for the storage of spent nuclear fuel by the NRC in a Certificate of Compliance. Public Watchdog sought to enjoin the defendants’ allegedly negligent decommissioning activities at SONGS and challenged, among other things, the NRC’s selection of Holtec International as the supplier of the spent nuclear fuel storage system and the NRC’s grant of the 2015 License Amendments. The panel held that the Hobbs Act must be interpreted broadly to encompass not only all final NRC actions in licensing proceedings, but also all decisions that are preliminary, ancillary, or incidental to those licensing proceedings. Because Public Watchdogs’s complaint challenged final orders of the NRC related to licensing, the NRC’s enforcement decisions related to NRC licenses and certifications, and conduct licensed or certified by the NRC, 4 PUBLIC WATCHDOGS V. S. CAL. EDISON Public Watchdogs’s action fell squarely within the scope of the Hobbs Act. Specifically, the panel held that the district court correctly determined that Public Watchdogs’s claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) directly challenged the grant of the 2015 License Amendments and the Certificate of Compliance for the Holtec System. The panel held that the 2015 License Amendments and the Certificate of Compliance were final orders of the NRC and related to the grant or amendment of a license or the issuance or modification of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees. Accordingly, under the Hobbs Act, the court of appeals had exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend or to determine the validity of those orders. The district court therefore correctly found that it lacked subject- matter jurisdiction over Public Watchdogs’s claim brought under the APA against the NRC to the extent it challenged the 2015 License Amendments and the Certificate of Compliance for the Holtec System. The panel rejected Public Watchdog’s argument that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over its APA claim because other agency actions, including a decision exempting Holtec from certain pre-approval requirements for canister design changes, fell outside the scope of the Hobbs Act. The panel held that even assuming Public Watchdogs’s APA claim did not challenge the grant of the 2015 License Amendments or the Certificate of Compliance for the Holtec System, Public Watchdogs’s APA claim related to other agency actions still fell within the scope of the Hobbs Act because it challenged the NRC’s enforcement “decisions not to suspend” a license or licensed operations and sought relief PUBLIC WATCHDOGS V. S. CAL. EDISON 5 that should have first been pursued before the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.206. The panel held that Public Watchdogs’s claims against private defendants, Holtec International and the utility defendants, fell within the scope of the Hobbs Act. The panel held that despite Public Watchdogs’s artful pleading, it was clear its claims against these private defendants were an attempt to challenge the 2015 License Amendments, the Certificate of Compliance for the Holtec System, and actions taken by the licensees under the authority of both of those final NRC orders. Public Watchdogs, therefore, could not avoid the Hobbs Act’s exclusive avenue of judicial review by pleading its challenge to the 2015 License Amendments and the Certificate of Compliance for the Holtec System as a public liability action under the Price-Anderson Act, or as a public nuisance claim or a strict products liability claim under California law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.