United Energy Trading, LLC v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

This dispute centers on allegations that defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG & E”) engages in fraudulent activity as the billing and collections agent for plaintiff' United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”). Following an earlier ruling in which PG & E knocked out a quartet of putative claims, UET amended its complaint to reassert three theories of liability: (1) a RICO-based respondeat superior claim; (2) a Sherman Act “attempt to monopolize” claim, 15 U.S.C. § 2 , and (3) a claim for conversion under California state law. PG & E now moves to dismiss these claims with prejudice for a second time. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is denied as to the respon-deat■ superior claim, and granted with leave to'amend as to the Sherman Act and conversion claims. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 74(b), the motion set for April 21, 2016, is suitable for. disposition without oral argument, and the hearing will be vacated.

*1188 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

PG & E and UET compete to provide natural gas to residential and small commercial end-users in California. The gas both supply is completely…