Legal Opinion
Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided March 18, 2004No. C-98-3009 MHPPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATEL, Chief Judge.
Motion for Summary Judgment
On August 3, 1998, plaintiff Modesto Irrigation District (“MID”) filed a complaint in this court against defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG & E”). 1 In pertinent part, MID’s complaint alleges that PG & E violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and related provisions of state law when it attempted to prevent MID from offering electric services in Pittsburg, California. On February 2, 1999, this court dismissed MID’s clams under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), granting MID leave to amend. See Modesto…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Perrin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC (In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig.)District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2018
- In Re ZunigaUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · 2005
- Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Park West Radiology v. Carecore National LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- South San Joaquin Irrigation District v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.