Tate

Tate v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Good Law
230 F. Supp. 2d 1072·2002 WL 31500956·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21877
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 17, 2002C 01-04015 WHACalifornia6,066 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alsup, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

In this antitrust and RICO case, this order eliminates all federal claims save one against defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company, which may go forward without prejudice to a motion for summary judgment after further opportunity for discovery.

STATEMENT

On a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, this order treats, as it must, all well-pled facts as true. Plaintiff Raymon Tate is a skilled mechanic. From 1990 until at least 2000, he developed facilities and technology for conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to natural-gas-powered vehicles. By July 1994, he had patented a device for converting natural gas into liquefied natural gas (LNG) (¶ 67). Although this device is portable, it is about the size of a locomotive. It is called the Liberty Station 2000. The idea is that the device can be moved to and operated at, for example, a fleet yard and used to refuel converted vehicles.

Skipping over two successive companies Tate founded and either closed or put into bankruptcy, the story really begins with Liberty Fuels, Inc., formed by Tate in December 1997. Liberty Fuels acquired an option on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.