People ex rel. Lockyer v. Transcanada Power L.P.

Good Law

110 F. App'x 839

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 12, 2004Nos. 03-15585, 03-15590, 03-15638, 03-15671, 03-15673, 03-15675, 03-15691, 03-15694, 03-15696, 03-16337; D.C. Nos. CV-02-03731-VRW, CV-02-02061-VRW, CV-02-02207-VRW, CV-02-03042-VRW, CV-02-03036-VRW, CV-02-03041-VRW, CV-02-03127VRW, CV-02-02400-VRW, CV-02-03040-VRW, CV-02-03311-VRWCalifornia639 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

These consolidated cases all arise from the electricity crisis that gripped California in the summer of 2000. The State of California, by its Attorney General, filed suit in state court against each of the *841 respondents, alleging that they had violated California’s proscription against unfair competition under § 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code by failing to file “the charge, rate, price or contract” for “each and every sale or purchase of wholesale energy” with the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (“FERC”) as required by the Federal Power Act, and in charging “unfair, unreasonable, and therefore unlawful” rates in violation of the Act. We conclude that disposition of this case is wholly controlled by our decisions in California v. Dynegy, Inc., 875 F.3d 831 (9th Cir.2004) (“Dynegy”), and Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County v. Dynegy Power Mktg., Inc., 384 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Snohomish”), and we affirm.

In Dynegy, we held that California as plaintiff could not circumvent federal jurisdiction by couching undeniably federal law claims in state law terms. See Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 843. Both of California’s claims in this case —…

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.