Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 16315·981 F.2d 429·1992 WL 356130·24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 485·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 31951
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 7, 199291-15785, 91-16306California5,147 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallace, J.

Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. (Nugget) appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG & E) based upon dismissal of its claim under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 , and the district court’s denial of leave to amend its claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961— 68. Nugget also challenges the district court’s order denying Nugget leave to amend its state law claims and dismissing them. Nugget further contends that the district court improperly refused to reconsider the magistrate judge’s denial of a discovery request and imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, and vacate in part and remand.

I

PG & E is a California public utility that buys, sells, and distributes electricity under the regulation of the California Public Utility Commission (Commission). In 1984, PG & E entered into three power purchase agreements with Nugget’s predecessor-in-interest, Enviro Hydro (Hydro), which…

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.