SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY V. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, No. 22-55498 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in a case brought by two utilities, Southern California Edison Company and Southern California Gas Company. The utilities claimed they were entitled to compensation under the Takings Clause or under state law for having to relocate their equipment from public streets to allow for the construction of a streetcar line.
The court held that the utilities did not have a property interest under California law in maintaining their facilities at their specific locations in the face of OCTA’s efforts to construct a streetcar line. The California Supreme Court recognized in a previous case that a public utility accepts franchise rights in public streets subject to an implied obligation to relocate its facilities therein at its own expense when necessary to make way for a proper governmental use of the streets.
The court rejected the utilities’ argument that constructing rail lines is per se a proprietary activity, not a governmental one. California common law has traditionally required utilities to bear relocation costs when governments construct subways, and there is no reason why above-ground rail lines should be treated differently.
Finally, the court rejected the utilities’ supplemental state-law claim that California Public Utilities Code section 40162 places the costs of relocation on OCTA. That provision says nothing about imposing the costs of relocation on OCTA. Thus, section 40162 does not apply to OCTA’s project.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Takings. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OTCA) in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by two investor-owned utilities, Southern California Edison Company and Southern California Gas Company (collectively, the Utilities), alleging that they are entitled to compensation either under the Takings Clause or under state law for having to relocate their equipment from public streets to allow for the construction of a streetcar line.
The panel held that the Utilities were not entitled to compensation under the Takings Clause because they did not have a property interest under California law in maintaining their facilities at their specific locations in the face of OCTA’s efforts to construct a streetcar line. The California Supreme Court recognized in Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 329 P.2d 289 (Cal. 1958), that a public utility accepts franchise rights in public streets subject * The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. to an implied obligation to relocate its facilities therein at its own expense when necessary to make way for a proper governmental use of the streets.
The panel rejected the Utilities’ argument that constructing rail lines is per se a proprietary activity, not a governmental one. California common law has traditionally required utilities to bear relocation costs when governments construct subways, and there is no reason why above-ground rail lines should be treated differently. California law is consistent with traditional principles of property law, historical practice, and Supreme Court precedent.
The panel rejected the Utilities’ supplemental state-law claim that California Public Utilities Code section 40162 places the costs of relocation on OCTA. That provision says nothing about imposing the costs of relocation on OCTA. Thus, section 40162 does not apply to OCTA’s project.
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.