-----Original Message-----
From: 	"Healey, Chris" <chealey@LUCE.com>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Healey+2C+20Chris+22+20+3Cchealey+40LUCE+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8:49 PM
To:	Alexander, Jeff; Allen, Gretchen; Bailey, Brent; Beh, James; Benzian, Peter; Bestor, Geoffrey; Bliss, Erik; Brooks, John T.; Brown, Heather; Burns, David; Butswinkas, Dane; Chapin, Edward; Coleman, Ran; Copeland, Greg; Costa, Jennifer; Cottle, Lisa; Davenport, Hugh; Davidson, Jeffrey; Dick, Charles; Edwards, Robert Jr.; Eisenstat, Larry; Ezickson, Doron; Fallon, Robert; Fergus, G.; Forrest, Kirk; Frizzell, Jean; Gammie, John; Gibbs, Robin; Goldberg, Alex; Guzman, Jose; Halling, Gary; Hamer, Mark; Harris, Scott; Hartman, Sanford; Healey, Christopher; Hein, Jennifer; Herbert, John; Herman, Stephen; Hernandez, Lynne; Hixson, Thomas; Holcomb, Bruce; Houlihan, Terry; Jines, Milke; Kadzik, Peter; Karp, Joseph; Kass, Michael; Katz, Bruno; Kennedy, Thomas; Kinnear, Todd; Kirby, Michael; Kleinman, Joel; Kohnke, Ernie; Lane, Linda; Leslie, John; Mattis, Martin; Maxwell, Melissa; McManus, Randy; Merryman, Bryan; Michel, Sydne; Miller, Lisa; Mittelstaedt, Robert; Molland, Michael; Muller, Tim; Murphy, Tanya; Newton, Joel; Nissen, Neha; Noonan, David; Packard, Connie; Pallenik, Christine; Paul, Joe; Pedersen, Norman; Perlis, Mark; Peters, Mary Lou; Pickens, A.; Pickett, Donn; Raber, Stephen; Ransom, James; Reasoner, Barrett; Rice Kelly, Hugh; Richardson, Tony; Roppe, Laura; Russell, JoAnn; Ryland, Ron; Sanders, Richard B.; Sauntry, June Ann; Scafe, Jennifer; Schenkkan, Pete; Seltzer Caplan Team; Shohet, Jeffrey; Smith, Martin; Sottosanti, Martha; Spanos, Theodore; Springer, James; Starbird, Zackary; Steiner, Robert; Stewart, Craig; Sturgeon, John; Taylor, Timothy; Tiffany, Joseph II; Tribble, Douglas; Varner, Carlton; Wall, Dan; Weaver, Michael; Wiegmann, Hack; Williams, Robert C.; Zdebski, Charles
Subject:	Remand Decision

Judge Whaley's decision granting the plaintiffs' remand motions is attached.
Judge Whaley held that, while the filed rate doctrine may well constitute an
"absolute defense,"  it does not support complete preemption sufficient to
provide federal jurisdiction.  While not the result we wanted, that aspect
of the decision was not unexpected.  Also, at several points, Judge Whaley
confirmed the "central and controlling role" the federal government plays in
the regulation of wholesale energy issues.

Unfortunately, the decision also includes Judge Whaley's view that
plaintiffs can state claims under the Cartwright Act and UCL statute
"without alleging or establishing that the electric rates charged were not
'just and reasonable'". Decision at 14-16.   While not binding on the state
court, plaintiffs will no doubt seek to make use of these and other portions
of Judge Whaley's decision to oppose our state court pleading challenge.

I'll set up a conference call in the next day or so to discuss status and
approach in light of the remand decision.

Regards.



> Part 1 of 2 (pages 1-16); Part 2 of 2 (pages 17-19)
>
>  <<7-31 Remand Order 1 of 2.pdf>>  <<7-31 Remand Order 2 of 2.pdf>>
>
> **************
>
> CONFIDENTIAL
>
> Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP
> 600 West Broadway
> Suite 2600
> San Diego, CA 92101-3391
> (619) 236-1414
>
> The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is
> confidential and intended to be sent only to the stated recipient of the
> transmission.  It may therefore be protected from unauthorized use or
> dissemination by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product
> privileges.  If you are not the intended recipient or the intended
> recipient's agent, you are hereby notified that any review, use,
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  You are also asked to notify us immediately by telephone and
> to delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in
> any form.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
>

 - 7-31 Remand Order 1 of 2.pdf 
 - 7-31 Remand Order 2 of 2.pdf