Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Good Law
61 F. Supp. 2d 1058·1999 WL 668720·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13505
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 20, 1999C-98-3009 MHPCalifornia8,601 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On August 3, 1998, plaintiff Modesto Irrigation District, Inc. (“MID”) filed this action alleging that defendants Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG & E”) and Dyn-ergy Power Services, Inc. (“DESTEC”) refused to deliver wholesale electric power to NM in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state tort laws. In particular, MID alleged (1) violations of section I of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 , and the Cartwright Act, Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code §§ 16720 et seq., California’s antitrust statute by both PG & E and DESTEC; (2) tortious interference with contract and with prospective business relationship against PG & E alone; and, (3) breach of contract against DESTEC. The court dismissed MID’s federal and state antitrust claims on February 2, 1999, on defendants’ motion, but granted MID leave to amend its complaint. See Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Pacific Gas & Elec., Case No. 98-3009 MHP, slip op. at 12-13 (N.D.Cal., Feb. 2, 1999) (“February order”).

MID subsequently filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on March 4, 1999, adding to the factual allegations in its original complaint and raising two additional causes of action: (1) violations of section…

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.