Legal Opinion
California Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Litigation Public Utility District No. 1 v. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided January 6, 2003No. 3:02-cr-01993PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
WHALEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Powerex Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (Ct.Rec.3) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Ct.Rec.12). 1 A hearing was held on December 19, 2002 in San Diego, California. Plaintiffs and Defendants were present and represented by counsel.
Background
Defendants’ motions for dismissal are premised on the “filed-rate doctrine” and federal preemption principles. In order to resolve these legal issues; however, it is important to detail the rather complex factual context in which they arise.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Public Utility District No. 1 Of Grays Harbor County Washington v. Idacorp Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Jenkins v. Entergy Corp., Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2006
- In Re Pennsylvania Title Insurance Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- McCray v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANYDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2009
- T & E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, L.L.C.District Court, S.D. California · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.