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