ANTHONY GANTNER v PG&E CORPORATION; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

Summarized by Amir Shachmurove , Brown Rudnick LLP
2 years 4 weeks ago

Case Type:

Business

Case Status:

Affirmed

Citation:

21-15571 (9th Circuit, Jan 23,2024) Not Published

Tag(s):

Ruling:

In light of the answer of the California Supreme Court (CASC) to one certified state law question - "yes," section 1759 of the California Public Utilities Code (CPUC) preempts a negligence claim in a putative class action complaint filed by Anthony Gantner against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Pacific Gad & Electric Corp. (PG&E) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (BC) - the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the BC's dismissal of Gartner's complaint, CASC's answer dispositive, and denial of leave to amend, his pleading incurably defective.

Procedural context:

Anthony Gantner (AG) filed a putative class action complaint against PG&E in the BC. The complaint alleged that, as a result of PG&E's negligence in maintaining its electrical equipment, PG&E had to engage in emergency power shutoffs, called Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPSs), during the 2019 fire season. The BC dismissed first held that the claim was preempted by CPUC's section 1759, prompting dismissal of AG's complaint, but further concluded that, even if not, that this pleading failed to allege the causal connection between PG&E's negligence and AG's injury required to sustain a negligence cause of action under state law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (DC) affirmed the BC's decision. AG appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Circuit). At this level, PG&E added a third argument in favor of the BC's decision: that PG&E's Electrical Rule 14 (Rule 14) shields it from liability for the relevant PSPSs. Presented with three arguments, the Circuit certified two questions of state law to the CASC: (1) whether section 1759 was preemptive when the relevant utility's allegedly negligence actions were not specifically approved by the California Public Utilities Commission, but foreseeably resulted in that entity having to engage in PSPS, pursuant to the commission's guidelines, from which the apposite plaintiff's injuries flowed; and (2) whether Rule 14 shielded PG&E from liability for an interruption in service determined by PG&E itself to be necessary for the safety of the public at large, even if PG&E's own negligence lay at that need's root. The Circuit issued this opinion once the CASC had given its definitive opinion as the reach of section 1759.

Facts:

On behalf of a putative class made up of “all California residents and business owners who had their power shut off by PG&E" in 2018 and 2019, AG sought $2.5 billion in damages for emergency power shutoffs that affected over 1 million customers. The Supreme Court held that Gantner’s action against PG&E was barred because the suit would interfere with the California Public Utilities Commission’s broad and continuing supervision of PSPS events as a tool for wildfire mitigation.

Judge(s):

Danny J. Boggs; John B. Owens; and Michelle T. Friedland

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!