Vista Energy Marketing, LP v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company et al

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., DENYING 26 Motion to Dismiss. (hsglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VISTA ENERGY MARKETING, LP,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9
10

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,
et al.,

11

Case No. 16-cv-04019-HSG
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND SETTING
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 26

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Defendants Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), Albert Torres, Bill Chen, and

13
14

Tanisha Robinson move to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiff Vista Energy Marketing. As

15

Plaintiff acknowledges several times in its opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff’s

16

allegations and causes of action in this case are materially identical to those of another case filed

17

by Plaintiff’s counsel in this District, North Star Gas Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., No. 4:15-

18

cv-02575-HSG (N.D. Cal.) (“North Star”).
For this reason, the Court’s disposition in North Star decides this motion to dismiss, which

19
20

the Court DENIES.

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

A.

23

The relevant factual allegations of this case are materially identical1 to those in North Star,

24

Factual Allegations

which the Court has already summarized. See North Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 3-5.

25
26
27
28

1

One allegation present in the North Star case that is absent here is that of a “Customer Call
Scheme,” wherein North Star alleged that PG&E “improperly and inaccurately tell[s] North Star
customers that PG&E’s natural-gas prices are less expensive than North Star’s pricing.” North
Star, Dkt. No. 56 ¶ 86. Plaintiff Vista makes no such allegation in its complaint. This distinction is
not relevant to the Court’s analysis.

1

B.

2

Plaintiff filed this action on July 15, 2016, asserting claims under federal and state law.

Procedural History

3

Against Torres, Chen, and Robinson (“Individual Defendants”), Plaintiff asserts substantive and

4

conspiracy claims under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18

5

U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. Compl. ¶¶ 90-112. Against PG&E, Plaintiff asserts eight claims: (1)

6

respondeat superior liability for the RICO counts, Compl. ¶¶ 113-19; (2) attempted

7

monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, Compl. ¶¶ 120-38; (3) breach of

8

fiduciary duty, Compl. ¶¶ 139-49; (4) intentional misrepresentation, id. ¶¶ 150-55; (5) negligent

9

misrepresentation, id. ¶¶ 156-61; (6) intentional interference with contract, id. ¶¶ 162-70; (7)
intentional interference with prospective business advantage, id. ¶¶ 171-79; and (8) violation of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., Compl. ¶¶ 180-84.
On September 22, 2016, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 26, which the

12
13
14
15

Court took under submission on December 6, 2016, Dkt. No. 34.
II.

DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss all nine counts of Plaintiff’s complaint. Because the Court has

16

already set forth the relevant standards and its reasoning for identical causes of action in North

17

Star, it refers the parties to its prior orders:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s RICO claims. See North
Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 30-38.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim.
See North Star, Dkt. No. 90 at 3-5.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim. See
North Star, Dkt. No. 90 at 5-6.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty
claim. See North Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 43.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s intentional
misrepresentation claim. See North Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 43-44.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation
2

1

claim. See North Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 44-45.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s intentional interference

2
3

with contract claim. See North Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 45.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s intentional interference

4
5

with prospective business advantage claim. See North Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 45-46.
The Court denies Defendants’ motion with regard to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to section

6
7

17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. See North Star, Dkt. No. 53 at 46-47.

8

III.

9

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint. The parties are ORDERED to appear at a case management conference on

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

October 3, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall submit a joint case management statement by

12

September 26, 2017.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3