Maverick Tube Corp. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of International Trade's decision denying a duty drawback adjustment for exports of oil country tubular goods where the Turkish company claiming the drawback adjustment claimed that Commerce only increases price to account for rebated rather than unpaid import duties, a position the court declined to adopt.
Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US Dept. of Transportation
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying petitions for review challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's authority to issue permits for US long-haul operations to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies.
Maverick Tube Corp. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of the International Trade court's decision sustaining the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce on remand to apply adverse facts available (AFA) after defendant did not report input purchases for two of its steel mills, the Trade Court decision is affirmed where Commerce's application of AFA to defendant is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal arising from the U.S. Department of Commerce's third administrative review of its antidumping-duty order covering certain steel nails from China, the Court of International Trade's denial of plaintiff's suit to set aside the results of the review is affirmed where the Federal Register notice of initiation of the review constituted notice to plaintiff as a matter of law and fully enabled plaintiff to participate in the review because plaintiff did not show any prejudice from not knowing of the request in the pre-initiation period.
US v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal arising from four collection actions in which the government sought to recover unpaid antidumping duties from a surety, the Court of International Trade's judgment on the pleadings holding that the government is not entitled to non-statutory equitable interest for unpaid antidumping duties for imported goods, is affirmed where Trade Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the government equitable prejudgment interest on top of 19 U.S.C. section 580 interest or in declining to permit defendant to make a deposit in an interest-bearing account.
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Commission
(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a divided decision by the International Trade Commission, finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. section 1337, based on the Commission's holding of invalidity of certain asserted claims of appellant's patent that describes single-brew coffee machines, the Commission's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Commission's holding that all asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description.
Boomerang Tube, LLC v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping investigation into oil country tubular goods (OCTGs) from Saudi Arabia and other countries imported into the U.S., the Trade Court's decision is vacated where the parties failed to exhaust their arguments before Commerce, and the Trade Court abused its discretion in waiving the exhaustion requirement in this case.
Meridian Products, LLC v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - In the Government's challenge to the Court of International Trade's (CIT) third remand determination that certain aluminum trim kits do not fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China, the CIT determination is reversed where the Department of Commerce correctly found in its initial decision that plaintiff's trim kits are aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms made of an aluminum alloy that is covered by the scope of the Orders.
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - In a case arising from the U.S. Department of Commerce's antidumping-duty investigation of multilayered wood flooring imports from the People's Republic of China, brought by Chinese entities that Commerce found had demonstrated their independence from the Chinese government and so deserved a separate antidumping-duty rate, not the so-called China-wide rate that applies to entities that had not shown their independence from the Chinese government, the Court of International Trade's decision affirming Commerce's findings is vacated where Commerce did not make the findings needed to justify departing from the congressionally approved 'expected method' applicable when all of the individually investigated firms have a zero or de minimis rate, which is the case here.
Churchman v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.
City of Oroville v. Superior Court
(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.
Winding Creek Solar LLC v. Peterman
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.
Mirkin v. XOOM Energy, LLC
(United States Second Circuit) - Partially affirmed, partially reversed. A class action suit against energy providers was dismissed and a post-judgment request for leave to amend was refused. Plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint and their proposed amended complaint stated plausible claims.
City of Hesperia v. Lake Arrowhead Comm. Serv. Dist
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.
Ponderosa Telephone Co. v. CAPUC
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs, rural, privately-owned telephone companies, brought suit against Defendant, California Public Utilities Commission, challenging the PUC’s decision establishing “cost of capital” as component in rate making. Plaintiff argued Defendant failed to adequately consider circumstances for rural telephone companies and that the PUC decision was unconstitutional. Appeals court held Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the PUC decision was arbitrary, capricious, lacking in evidentiary support, or fell short of constitutional standards.
San Diego Gas and Electric Co. v. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.
City and County of San Francisco v. Uber Technologies Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.
Butler v. Coast Electric Power Association
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that defendant rural power cooperatives were entitled to remove a case from state to federal court. The lawsuit alleged that they had unlawfully failed to provide certain refunds to their members. Reversed a remand order, in these three consolidated cases.
Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Tennessee Valley Authority is subject to suits challenging any of its commercial activities, just as if it were a private corporation supplying electricity. The TVA insisted that, as a government-owned corporation, it has sovereign immunity from all tort suits arising from its performance of so-called discretionary functions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Kagan.
Californians for Renewable Energy v. California Public Utilities Commission
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed small-scale solar energy producers' claims that the California Public Utilities Commission's programs do not comply with federal requirements. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Save Lafayette Trees v. City of Lafayette
(California Court of Appeal) - In an amended opinion, revived a citizen group's claim that a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove numerous trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed a demurrer ruling, in relevant part.
Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a consumer could not proceed with a proposed class action challenging electricity rates in the wake of market deregulation. Affirmed summary judgment against his breach of contract, unfair trade practice and other claims alleging that a retail electricity supplier charged unlawful rates.
Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a municipality's water rate plan was subject to voter referendum, reversing the trial court. Further held that California voters' 1996 adoption of Proposition 218, concerning initiatives, did not abridge voters' right to challenge local resolutions and ordinances by referendum.
US v. Luminant Generation Co., LLC
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the federal government was time-barred from seeking civil penalties against two electric power companies that allegedly violated the Clean Air Act by failing to obtain a statutorily mandated preconstruction permit for the modification of their facilities. Also held, however, that the government still could pursue injunctive relief, and thus reversed the dismissal of the government's complaint in relevant part.
Coalition for Competitive Electricity v. Zibelman
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a group of electrical power generators and related trade groups could not proceed with their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the New York Public Service Commission's Zero Emissions Credit program, which subsidizes qualifying nuclear power plants by creating state‐issued clean-energy credits. Affirmed a dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.
Turlock Irrigation District v. FERC
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a petition for review of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision. Two irrigation districts contended that FERC should not have denied their complaint alleging that an electric utility company breached certain agreements with them. Concluding that FERC's orders were arbitrary and capricious, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review.
Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding
(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a city's practice of annually transferring funds from a city-operated electric utility to the city's general fund did not run afoul of the California Constitution, which prohibits local governments from imposing any tax without voter approval. A citizen association brought this suit arguing that the city was, in effect, using utility rates to impose a tax without voter approval. Rejecting this contention, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal.
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders
(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an order denying a request by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) bondholders for relief from an automatic stay. The bondholders argued that a statute enacted by Congress to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis did not preclude them from obtaining relief so that they could petition another court to place PREPA into receivership. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.
Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA
(United States Second Circuit) - Denied petitions for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final rule related to cooling water intake structures. The petitioners in this case, a number of environmental conservation groups and industry associations, sought judicial review of an EPA rule promulgated under the Clean Water Act establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures, which are used by power plants and manufacturing facilities to extract water and dissipate waste heat. Denying the petitions, the Second Circuit concluded that the final rule was sufficiently supported by the factual record and that the EPA gave adequate notice of its rulemaking.
Time Warner Cable Inc. v. County of Los Angeles
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed in part a ruling addressing how much money Los Angeles County may tax Time Warner Cable. The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Time Warner, argued that the county government was taxing it more than the law allowed for its use of public rights-of-way. On appeal, the Second Appellate District held that the county was not required to value the possessory interests based only on five percent of cable television revenue. In all other respects the panel affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Augustin v. City of Philadelphia
(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the City of Philadelphia unconstitutionally uses liens as a means to collect unpaid gas bills. In this lawsuit brought by a group of landlords, the City appealed from a ruling that it had violated the landlords' rights under the Due Process Clause by using a system of liens to collect unpaid gas bills. On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the City's procedures for collecting gas debts, and thus reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the landlords.
Pacific Gas & Electric v. Sup. Ct.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order denying summary judgment to plaintiff as to punitive damages. A devastating wildfire started when a tree came into contact with overhead powerlines. The real parties in interest claimed that plaintiff (PG&E) was responsible and sought punitive damages. PG&E had sought summary judgment as to the punitive damages claim which was denied by the trial court.
World Business Academy v. California State Lands Commission
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of an administrative writ and declaratory relief in the case of a Pacific Gas and Electric Company lease extension on two long term leases on land used for water intake and discharge for a nuclear power plant because the lease replacement was subject to the existing facilities categorical exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act's environmental impact report requirement and the unusual circumstances exception did not apply.
Webb v. City of Riverside
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a verified petition for writ of mandate complaining about a city's transfer of additional revenue from electric utility reserve fund accounts into the general fund without approval from the electorate because the action was subject to the 120 day statute of limitations of the Public Utilities Code and was not a tax increase.
Holloway v. Showcase Realty Agents, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim relating to the alleged conflict of interest in the acquisition of property by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District's acquisition of property where one of the District's directors had partial ownership of the agency facilitating the sale of the property and whose wife was its listing agent because the former owner had standing under the Government Code to bring the action and that the action was not subject to validation statutes because it was a conflict of interest rather than a contracts claim.
Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the judgment and remanding the case of a woman whose home had a distressing electric charge, particularly in the shower, as the result of a power plant next door because the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence relating to stray voltage incidents involving prior owners and tenants and that the admission of that evidence was prejudicial.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(United States Second Circuit) - Denying a petition for review by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation seeking to vacate two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizing a company to construct a natural gas pipeline in New York and determining that the Department waived its authority to provide a water quality certification for the pipeline project under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Goncharov v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's decision to sustain a demurrer by Uber, who argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear a putative class action brought by licensed taxicab drivers because the Public Utilities Code did not apply where the California Public Utilities Commission was in the process of developing rules relating to the company's activites and the second amended complaint failed to state a claim as to all causes of action.
Allco Renewable Energy Ltd. v. Massachusetts Electric Company
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an action by a private energy company against the utility companies because the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act does not provide a private right of action against utility companies and affirming the denial of a motion for additional relief against various Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities officials because the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. San Juan Cable
(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.
Penn. Pub. Util. Commission v. Jenkins
(United States First Circuit) - In a judgment enforcement action, the district court's order approving a sale recommended by the receiver as part of wrapping of a fifteen year case stemming from a $58 million judgment is affirmed where the sale appeal is not equitably moot and the district court's orders approving the sale details was not an abuse of discretion.
Jameson v. Pacific Gas and Electric
(California Court of Appeal) - In a labor and employment action, arising after plaintiff was allegedly terminated by his employer, PG&E, for retaliating against a safety inspector who raised issues about his project, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where regardless of whether plaintiff was an at-will employee, PG&E established good cause for terminating him.
Grice III v. McVeigh
(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing the decision of the US District Court denying the motion of police officers for qualified immunity in the arrest of a teenage train enthusiast who sued following his arrest while inspecting a train crossing because the police had reasonable suspicion, the actions of the officers did not amount to an arrest, and their other actions did not violate the law.
Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara
(Supreme Court of California) - In a case relating to a surcharge added to energy bills that the city claimed was a fee for the use of public services which taxpayers characterized as a tax imposed without voter approval the court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the trial court's grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings, but reversed the appellate court's order granting summary adjudication to the plaintiffs.
Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist.
(California Court of Appeal) - In a class action against a Water District challenging the method used by District to calculate wastewater service 'fees or charges' between about 2012 and 2014, the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant, holding that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under article XIII D of the California Constitution, is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs' class action is not barred by their failure to exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in section 6 because plaintiffs' substantive challenge involving the method used by District to calculate its wastewater service fees or charges is outside the scope of the administrative remedies; and 2) under the facts of this case, those remedies are, in any event, inadequate.
SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power Dist.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.
California Pub. Utilities Comm'n v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm'n
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review brought by various entities challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)'s calculation of certain refunds arising out of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, the petition is: 1) granted in part where FERC acted arbitrarily or capriciously in allocating the refund only to net buyers and not to all market participants; and 2) denied in part as to the question of whether refunds should be netted hourly or a cross the entire refund period where FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its construction of tariffs.
S. California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works v. US Environtmental Protection Agency
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review challenging an Objection Letter sent by the EPA regarding draft permits for water reclamation plants in El Monte and Pomona, California, the petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither 33 U.S.C. section 1369(b)(1)(E) nor (F) of the Clean Water Act provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to review the Objection Letter.
Schoshinksi v. City of Los Angeles
(California Court of Appeal) - In a class action alleging the City unlawfully charged plaintiffs and others an unauthorized trash disposal fee, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, on grounds that the City had already reimbursed the plaintiffs for all improper charges, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' individual claims are moot because a court could grant them no further relief beyond what they have already received; and 2) unlike other cases in which the 'pick off' exception has been applied, here, the injunctive relief provisions in the Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles stipulated settlement and judgment required the City to reimburse plaintiffs and other putative class members, and the City complied with this obligation before plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint naming them as parties; and thus 2) under these particular circumstances, the 'pick off' exception does not apply.
Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which the Court of Appeals previously dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs from a nonappealable stipulated judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement, and the parties entered into an amended stipulated judgment, the trial court's decision is reversed where: 1) the amended stipulated judgment is final and appealable and the court's opinion, with respect to the trespass and nuisance claims only, is not advisory; 2) on the merits, plaintiffs were legally entitled to present evidence of plaintiff's emotional distress on their claims for trespass and nuisance as annoyance and discomfort damages recoverable for such torts; and 3) the trial court excluded evidence of emotional distress damages in their entirety.