Lynch v. California Public Utilities Commission

Good Law
342 F. App'x 581
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 16, 2006No. 04-16493California547 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The appellants, former members of the California Public Utilities Commission *582 (“Commission”), appeal the district court’s dismissal of their appeal of the bankruptcy-court’s order confirming a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) between the Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG & E”) in PG & E’s bankruptcy case. We do not reach the merits of the appeal.

While the appeal was pending, the appellants’ terms on the Commission expired. In light of this circumstance and the representations made by the appellees to this court, the Settlement Agreement results in no current adverse effects upon the appellants. Because none of the appellants’ claims presently give rise to a “live case or controversy,” the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir.1999).

As the appellants are no longer commissioners, they are not entitled to seek relief on the claims that the Settlement Agreement impairs their ability to perform their official duties. See Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 514, 521 (9th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, because the Commission has represented to this court…

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.