|
|
Enron Mail |
At the hearing today before Judge Kuhl, she ordered the coordination, but
has set Sacramento as the venue. She took the bench with that as her tentative, pointing to the second paragraph of Govt. C. 955, which provides the state the opportunity to remove non-takings cases to Sacramento -- an argument that the State did NOT make. She also mentioned that the State's action in Sacramento is the only one that attempted to bring in all of the parties. She found that the convenience to the parties was not significant, since they seemed to be all over. She also found that the matter could be sent back from Sacramento if the judge, after completing the legal issues, felt that trials in SF or LA would be better. George argued for CalPX. Linda Callison argued for PG&E, stating their preference of SF, but LA over Sacramento. Reliant and Williams argued for LA. Richard Williams argued for the State. We went through a couple of rounds with very little questioning by the judge. The only issue that caught her attention was George's argument that CCP 401(2) provides that a party sued by the state can remove the action to their county for trial, as long as the AG has an office there. She questioned the interplay between that section and the one she cited, but did not take up George's offer to brief the issue. Because her decision seemed to be without any serious reason, it was out of character for her, suggesting that other issues were at play. She broke the argument at one point to suggest that all of the arguments about where the property was located were really cover for the underlying reality that all of the parties had reasons to like or hate particular judges in the various venues that they were trying to get or avoid. We speculate that the judges in the LA complex panel did not want this one and she is sending it elsewhere. We don't think it is political, since she is no friend of Gray Davis. Aton Arbisser aton@kayescholer.com (310) 788-1015; fax (310) 788-1205
|