Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Federal Preemption Pipeline Safety Act: Zoning Regulation

摘要

Washington Gas operates a natural gas substation that has been in use since 1933. In 2004, it seeks to construct a liquefied natural gas storage tank at the site in order to meet a projected increase in customer demand. After numerous hearings over two years, the permit is denied. An appeal to the District Council affirms the decision and a further appeal is brought in state court. The state court action is dismissed and remanded back to the District Council on ripeness grounds. Plaintiff then files this action in federal court asserting that both federal and state law preempts the County zoning regulation. The District Court issues a preliminary order finding that Plaintiff is not subject to FERC jurisdiction and that under the Pipeline Safety Act the particular facility is an intrastate facility which is not subject to the express preemption provisions of the Act. (42 U.S.C. § 60104(c)). Plaintiff is seeking to file a third amended complaint that recharacterizes earlier theories and raises new theories. The County Council opposes granting the motion for leave to filed the third amended complaint. Normally a court will grant the motion to amend unless the amendment would be futile or prejudicial to the other side.