Cases

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 07-157C & 07-167C Consolidated No. 07-184C Filed: March 12, 2015 ***************************** * PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, * and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON * COMPANY, * * Plaintiffs,

ORDER The parties having so agreed, it is ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).

OPINION 1 HEWITT, Chief Judge. I. Introduction This case is before the court on remand for the purpose of redetermining damages in accordance with the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States (PG & E II), 536 F.3d 1282 (Fed.Cir.200

OPINION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEELER, Judge. In this breach of contract action, the Court is faced with a threshold question of whether a binding contract exists for the services rendered. Plaintiff Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG & E”) asserts that, after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), approved a Grid Management Pass Through Tariff (the

ORDER HEWITT, Judge. I. Background This proceeding regarding sanctions or remedies arises from plaintiffs counsel’s failure to comply with an order of this court. The court’s order of May 14, 2006, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, No. 04-74C, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 418, at *1 (Fed.Cl. May 14, 2006) (Order Amending Protective Order), arose out of the

ORDER HEWITT, Judge. Before the court are Defendant’s Motion to Enforce the Terms of the Protective Order, As Amended by the Court’s Order Dated May 14, 2006 (Motion to Enforce or Def.’s Mot.), PG & E’s Response to the Government’s May 25, 2007 Motion to Enforce Protective Order (Response or Pl.’s Resp.), and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce the Term

OPINION HEWITT, Judge. On October 27, 2006, plaintiff submitted PG & E’s Motion to Amend Findings and Judgment (PL’s Mot. or Motion) on Part II.B.2.a of the trial opinion issued on this case on October 13, 2006, see Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States (PG & E), 73 Fed.Cl. 333, 424-27 (2006) (Trial Opinion). Given the scope of plaintiffs Motion, the court deems it

OPINION1 HEWITT, Judge. This case is before the court following a trial on a claim by plaintiff, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG & E or plaintiff), for partial breach of contract against the federal government (government or United States or defendant). Plaintiff’s action is one of many similar actions against the government that are either pending before this court or that h

ORDER HEWITT, Judge. Before the court are Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated March 14, 2006 (Recons. Mot. or Reconsideration Motion), PG & E’s Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration (Pl.’s Resp. or Response), Defendant’s Re[p]ly to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dated March 14, 2006 (Def.’s Reply or Reply),

OPINION AND ORDER HEWITT, Judge. Plaintiff Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) seeks damages from defendant arising from an alleged breach of the Department of Energy (DOE)’s contractual obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Complaint (Compl.) It l.1 Plaintiff seeks damages for defendant’s alleged partial breach of contract in Count I of its complaint,

OPINION HEWITT, Judge. The court has before it Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Withheld Under the “Deliberative Process” Privilege (Pl.’s Mot. or Motion), Defendant’s Opposition to Pacific Gas & Electric’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Withheld Under the Deliberative Process Privilege and Response to the Court’s November 16, 2005 Order

ORDER * HEWITT, Judge. The court has before it Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Expedited Hearing (PL’s Mot. or Motion), Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery for Document Request 22 (PL’s Mem. or Memorandum), Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery (Def.’s Resp.

OPINION AND ORDER HEWITT, Judge. The court has before it Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report of Brad Cornell Related to Future Damages (Def.’s Str. Mot. or Motion to Strike), PG & E’s Opposition to Motion to Strike Cornell Expert Witness Report Related to Future Damages (Pl.’s Str. Resp.), and Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report of

HEWITT, Judge. OPINION The court has before it Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Deposition Testimony Improperly Withheld on the Basis of Privilege (Def.’s Mot. or Motion), PG & E’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Testimony Withheld as Privileged (PL’s Resp. or Response), and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defe

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN- DYK, Circuit Judge, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and the state of California (collectively, “appellants”), brought suit against the United States claiming that two federal government agencies selling electricity (the Western Area Power Administration and the Bonnevil

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE THELTON E. HENDERSON, United ' States District Judge Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) and the Government submitted simultaneous motions in limine on January 11, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 236, 237. Both parties timely opposed and replied in support of their respective motions. Dkt. Nos. 277, 281, 300, 308. The Court held limited oral argument on April

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE: COUNTONE THELTON E. HENDERSON, United States District Judge This matter came before the Court on October 19, 2015 for a hearing on Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”)’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense: Count One. After carefully considering the parties’ written and oral arguments, the Court now DEN

ORDER DENYING DEPENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 4, 5 AND 24-28 AS BARRED BY THE: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS , THELTON E. HENDERSON, United States District Judge This matter came before the Court on September 21, 2015 for a hearing on Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric ,(“PG&E”)’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 4, 5 and 24-28 as Barred by the Statute of Limitations, After carefully considering the parties’