T & E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, L.L.C.

Good Law

268 F. Supp. 2d 1240·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10234

United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 19, 2003CV-02-2059-RHW, CCV-02-2176RHW, CV-02-2178-RHW, CV-02-2180-RHW, CV-02-2181-RHW, CV-02-2182-RHWCalifornia3,609 words

Opinion

Whaley, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions to Remand. A hearing was held on March 26, 2003, in San Diego California, to hear oral argument on the motions.

Background

The Court is intimately familiar with the procedural and factual background of these cases, as they stem from the same circumstances concerning the California energy crisis that the Court addressed in the Hendricks v. Dynegy Power Marketing, 160 F.Supp.2d 1155 (S.D.Cal.2001), group of cases.

Plaintiffs’ complaints allege unfair business practices by the Defendants in California’s wholesale energy market, in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. While the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ complaints are similar to those the Court has addressed in prior cases, the parties focus on an allegation contained in the complaints that is allegedly unique to the cases at bar. In the complaints, Plaintiffs state:

Pastorino Complaint, ¶ 56; El Super Burrito Complaint, ¶ 57; RDJ Farms Complaint, ¶ 48; Century Theatres Complaint, ¶55.

A little background as to the operation of the ISO markets is helpful to better understand the grounds for the allegation. Under…

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.