PacifiCorp v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Oregon District Court PacifiCorp v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County

PacifiCorp v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County

Plaintiff:	PacifiCorp
Defendant:	Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County
Case Number:	3:2009cv01012
Filed:	August 26, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Portland Office
County:	Multnomah
Presiding Judge:	Garr M. King
Nature of Suit:	Both
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Jury Demanded By:	Both

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 25, 2011	Filing 68 Opinion and Order - PacifiCorps Motion for Summary Judgment 36 is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: GRANTED with respect to the declaration that Grant is entitled to terminate the PPA upon reasonable notice; DENIED AS MOOT on the issu e of personal jurisdiction over Grant; DENIED with respect to a declaration that the PPA terminated as a matter of law when the Vantage Agreement expired; and DENIED with respect to a declaration that PacifiCorpsfiling this action constitutes reasona ble notice of termination. Grants motion for summary judgment 41 is GRANTED for PacifiCorps Second Claim for Relief, and DENIED for Grants request that the court exercise its discretion to dismissPacifiCorps declaratory relief claims. Signed on 1/25/2011 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)
November 16, 2009	Filing 16 Opinion - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 4 under Rule 12(b)(2) is DENIED. Signed on 11/16/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 25, 2011

Filing 68 Opinion and Order - PacifiCorps Motion for Summary Judgment 36 is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: GRANTED with respect to the declaration that Grant is entitled to terminate the PPA upon reasonable notice; DENIED AS MOOT on the issu e of personal jurisdiction over Grant; DENIED with respect to a declaration that the PPA terminated as a matter of law when the Vantage Agreement expired; and DENIED with respect to a declaration that PacifiCorpsfiling this action constitutes reasona ble notice of termination. Grants motion for summary judgment 41 is GRANTED for PacifiCorps Second Claim for Relief, and DENIED for Grants request that the court exercise its discretion to dismissPacifiCorps declaratory relief claims. Signed on 1/25/2011 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)

November 16, 2009

Filing 16 Opinion - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 4 under Rule 12(b)(2) is DENIED. Signed on 11/16/09 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PacifiCorp v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: PacifiCorp
Represented By:	Joshua M. Sasaki
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County
Represented By:	Raymond S. Kindley
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?