Vista Energy Marketing, LP v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company
4:16-cv-04019
N.D. Cal.Sep 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Vista Energy Marketing, LP sued PG&E and three employees (Torres, Chen, Robinson) alleging RICO, Sherman Act attempted monopolization, various torts (fraud, negligent misrepresentation, interference), breach of fiduciary duty, and a California UCL claim.
- The operative factual allegations are materially identical to those in a prior, related suit by the same counsel, North Star Gas Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., before the same judge; one minor factual allegation (a "Customer Call Scheme") present in North Star is absent here.
- Defendants moved to dismiss all nine counts; the motion was fully briefed and taken under submission.
- The Court treated the present motion as controlled by its prior rulings in North Star because the complaints and legal theories are materially identical.
- For each claim (substantive and conspiracy RICO against individuals; respondeat superior against PG&E; Sherman Act; breach of fiduciary duty; intentional and negligent misrepresentation; intentional interference with contract and prospective economic advantage; and California Business & Professions Code § 17200), the Court applied the same reasoning it used in North Star.
- The Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full and set a case management conference date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are RICO claims (substantive and conspiracy) plausibly pleaded against individual defendants? | RICO predicates and pattern adequately alleged based on PG&E conduct and individual involvement. | Claims are deficient as pled and should be dismissed. | Denied — RICO claims survive (consistent with North Star). |
| Is PG&E liable under respondeat superior for employees' alleged wrongdoing? | PG&E is vicariously liable for employees' acts within scope of employment. | PG&E disputes agency/scope and seeks dismissal. | Denied — respondeat superior claim survives. |
| Does Plaintiff state an attempted monopolization claim under the Sherman Act? | Alleged exclusionary conduct and market power support attempt-to-monopolize claim. | Allegations insufficient as a matter of law. | Denied — Sherman Act claim survives. |
| Are the state-law tort and UCL claims (breach of fiduciary duty; intentional and negligent misrepresentation; intentional interference with contract and prospective advantage; §17200) adequately pleaded? | Allegations of misrepresentation, interference, and fiduciary breach state viable claims. | Claims fail for various pleading defects. | Denied as to all listed state-law claims — claims survive (consistent with North Star). |
Key Cases Cited
No controlling published appellate or district-court opinions with official reporter citations were relied upon as the basis for disposition; the Court relied on its prior published/non-published orders in North Star Gas Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to resolve identical issues.