Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01216/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01216-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

EX REL. BILL LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL )

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

)

POWEREX CORP., a Canadian Corporation, )

dba POWEREX ENERGY CORP., ) CIV-S-05-143 GEB PAN

and DOES 1 - 100, ) CIV-S-05-518 GEB PAN

) CIV-S-05-1216 DFL DAD

Defendant. )

) ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER )

RESOURCES, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

POWEREX CORP., a Canadian Corporation, )

dba POWEREX ENERGY CORP., )

and DOES 1 - 100, )

)

 Defendant. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

EX REL. BILL LOCKYER, ATTORNEY GENERAL )

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

POWEREX CORP., a Canadian Corporation, )

dba POWEREX ENERGY CORP.; PUBLIC )

SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO; )

and DOES 1 - 100, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Case 2:05-cv-01216-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The document was not filed in the earlier filed actions

as required by Local Rule 83-123(b). See L.R. 83-123(b) (“Counsel

who has reason to believe that an action on file or about to be

filed is related to another action on file . . . shall promptly

file in each action and serve on all parties in each action a

Notice of Related Cases.”).

2

On June 17, 2005, Powerex Corp. filed a Notice of Related

Cases document in CIV-S-05-1216.1 Although the earlier filed actions

were related so that the same magistrate judge would be assigned to

both actions, when the remand motions filed in those actions were

analyzed, the non-relatedness of the actions was discerned. 

The latest filed action is not related to the earlier filed

actions since the actions involve different legal claims and factual

allegations. Specifically, the latest filed action is based on an

alleged conspiracy between Powerex Corp., Public Service Company of

New Mexico, and the Colorado River Commission, whereas the earlier

filed actions are not based on a conspiracy claim and do not mention

either the Public Service Company of New Mexico or the Colorado River

Commission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01216-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2