Legal Opinion
Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 6, 2002No. 99-17069; D.C. No. CV-98-03009-MHPPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
We review 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend de novo. Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc., 182 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.1999). We refer throughout to PG & E as shorthand for both defendants, PG & E and Dynergy (Destec), except where the context makes it clear that we mean only PG &E.
PG & E’s motion to take judicial notice of Modesto’s application to FERC, the California Public Utilities Commission’s intervention opposing Modesto’s application, FERC’s docket regarding these, and a FERC ruling, is granted.
PG & E argues that the federal courts have no…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Otter Tail Power Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Cost Management Services, Inc. v. Washington Natural Gas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Big Bear Lodging Ass'n v. Snow Summit, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Betaseed, Inc. v. U & I Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re ZunigaUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · 2005
- Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2004
- Merced Irrigation District v. County of MariposaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013