United States Ninth Circuit

In a suit arising from the energy crisis of 2000-2001 in California, plaintiffs' claims, alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of wholesale electricity, should have been dismissed, on immunity grounds, rather than remanded to state court.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/14/2004
• Decided 12/08/2004
• Published 12/08/2004

Judges

• SCHROEDER, Chief Judge:, Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, CANBY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Gordon P. Erspamer, Morrison & Foerester, Walnut Creek, CA, for Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Avista Energy, Inc., Idaho Power Co., IDACORP Energy, L.P., Northern California Power Agency, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Sierra Pacific Industries, Silicon Valley Power, Trans Alta Energy Marketing Company, and Tucson Electric Power Co., cross-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Nora Cregan, Bingham McCutchen, San Francisco, CA, for Reliant Energy, appellants/cross-appellees., Joel B. Kleinman, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, Washington, DC, for Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, appellants/cross-appellees., Alisa B. Klein, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Bonneville Power Administration & Western Area Power Administration, appellees/cross-appellants., Barry R. Himmelstein, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, San Francisco, CA, for the People of the State of California, plaintiffs-appellees., Gary J. Smith, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for British Columbia Hydro, Power Authority and PowerEx Corp., appellee/cross-appellant.