# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No s

. 07

- 157C & 07

- 167C Consolidated

No. 07

- 184C

Filed: April 15

, 201 5

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, *

a nd SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISO N *

COMPANY

, *

*

Plaintiff s

, *

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, *

*

Plaintiff, *

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF *

CALIFORNIA EX REL. EDMUND G. *

BROWN JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF *

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and the *

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER *

RESOURCES BY AN D THROUGH ITS *

CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES *

SCHEDULING DIVISION, *

*

Plaintiff, *

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jurisdiction;

RCFC 1;

RCFC 12(b)(1) ;

RCFC 12(h)(3).2

Marie L. Fiala , Sidley Austin

, LLP, San Francisco, California, Counsel for Plaintiff, Pacific Gas

& Electric Company.

Jane I. Ryan , Steptoe & Johnson

, LLP, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Plaintiff, Southern

California Edison Company.

Mark Fogelman , Friedman & Springwater

, L LP, San Francisco, California, Counsel for Plaintiff,

San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

Kenneth D. Woodrow , United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C.,

Counsel for Defendant.

Gary Alexander , Deputy Attorney General, Counsel for Plaintiff The People of the State of

California et al., Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, California.

BRADEN

, Judge

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’

REMAINING CLAIMS

O n March 12, 2007, P acific Gas & Electric and S outhern California Edison filed a

C omplaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims

, alleging that the “voluntary sales of

electric power in the California wholesale markets [,] pursuant to the ISO and PX Tariffs [,] and

pursuant to certain written agreements [,] gave rise to binding contractual obligations that [WAPA

and BPA ] owed to the other market par ticipants, including the [Cal

- IOUs ,]

. . . direct parties to

and expressly inte nded beneficiaries of [WAPA and BPA’s ] contractual obligations.” 3/12/07

Compl. ¶ 2. “The signator ies to the [WAPA and BPA ] agreements had authority to enter into the

agreements and to bind [WAPA and BPA ] contractually. [WAPA and BPA ] have breached thei r

contractual obligations [

. ] ” 3/12/07 Compl. ¶ 2.

On March 13, 2007, S an Diego Gas & Electric filed an almost identical C omplaint in the

United States Court of Federal Claims. See San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States

, No. 07

- 167 (“ 3/13/07 Compl. ”). And, on March 16, 2007, California and the California Department of

Water Resources filed a similar C omplaint

. See California v. United States

, No. 07

- 184 (“ 3/16/07

Compl. ”)

.

On Mar ch 16, 2015, the c ourt issued a Memorandum Opinion And Final Order Regarding

Plaintiffs’ Breach Of Contract Claim

, dismissing Plaintiffs ’ breach of contract claim. See Pac.

Gas & Elec. Co v. United States

, 2015 WL 1186301, No. 07

- 157 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 16, 2015). In

addition t o laying out the factual and procedural background of the case, the court determined that

P laintiffs lacked privity of contract with the Government. Id. at *19. Accordingly , the court

granted the Government’s July 1, 2014 Motion For Entry Of Judgment Dis missing Claim I of

Plaintiffs ’ March 12, 2007

, March 13, 2007, and March 16, 2007 Complaint s

. Id. at *26.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Clarification Of The Status Of Remaining

Claims , admitting that the remaining claims “are premised o n the same [alleged] contracts as the3

breach of contract claim dismissed by the [c]ourt in its March 16, 2015 order.” Pl. Mot. at 1. On

April 13, 2015, the Government filed a Response (“Gov’t Resp.”)

.

Because the court has determined that Plaintiffs l ack privity of contract with the

Government, the court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs ’ remaining claims. See

28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); see also RCFC 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks

subject

- matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. ”).

Dismissing all remaining claims also will facilitate an expeditious and comprehensive

appeal. See Rule 1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) (“[The

RCFC] should be construed and adminis tered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action and proceeding.”).

For these reasons, the Clerk is directed to dismiss Plaintiffs’ March 12, 2007

, March 13,

2007 , and March 16, 2007 Complaints.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Susan G. Braden

Susan G. Braden,

Judge