Imperial Irrigation District v. California Independent System Operator Corporation
Plaintiff: Imperial Irrigation District
Defendant: California Independent System Operator Corporation
Case Number: 3:2015cv01576
Filed: July 16, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: Anthony J. Battaglia
Presiding Judge: Ruben B. Brooks
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 22, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 94 ORDER denying 77 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 84 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court DENIES CAISO's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (Doc. No. 77), and GRANTS IID's motion for leave to amend the complaint, (Doc. No. 84). The Court ORDERS IID to file its second amended complaint on the docket no later than seven days following this order's issuance. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 9/22/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)
August 16, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 59 ORDER: (1) Granting 53 CAISO's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; and (2) Denying 58 CAISO's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits. CAISO need not answer the FAC until 15 days after the Court rules on CAISO's motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/16/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dls)
August 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER finding as moot 44 Ex Parte Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Dismiss. The Court grants in part and denies in part CAISOs motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 28.) The Court dismisses IIDs federal antitrust, breach of tar iff, and unlawful UCL claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court dismisses the fraudulent UCL claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IID may file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted herein with respect to the fraudulent UCL claim no later than twenty-on e days following this orders issuance. Failure to amend the complaint will result in dismissal of that claim with prejudice. The Court denies as moot IIDs request to respond to CAISOs exhibit. (Doc. No. 44.). Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 8/1/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)
November 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 16 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 11/24/15. (dlg)
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 California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Imperial Irrigation District v. California Independent System Operator Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Imperial Irrigation District
Represented By: Nicole M. Black
Represented By: John Cardinal Parks
Represented By: Todd R. Seelman
Represented By: Ross G Simmons
Represented By: R Gaylord Smith
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: California Independent System Operator Corporation
Represented By: Neil R. O'Hanlon
Represented By: Robert B. Wolinsky
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?