Enron Mail

Subject:UC/CSU Procedural Next Steps
Date:Wed, 16 May 2001 12:33:00 -0700 (PDT)

Jeff, fyi
- between wholesale and retail - these California issues are covered extensively.
---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/EES on 05/16/2001 09:32 AM ---------------------------

Dan Leff
05/16/2001 08:18 AM
To: David W Delainey/HOU/EES@EES, Janet R Dietrich/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: UC/CSU Procedural Next Steps

Dave / Janet -

There was some confusion after the executive committee meeting on Monday. Whalley & I discussed yesterday.

Following is a clarification note that I forwarded to Whalley this AM.

Thanks - Dan

---------------------- Forwarded by Dan Leff/HOU/EES on 05/16/2001 08:05 AM ---------------------------
From: Robert C Williams/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/16/2001 07:58 AM
To: Dan Leff/HOU/EES@EES, Marty Sunde/HOU/EES@EES
cc: Vicki Sharp/HOU/EES@EES
Subject: UC/CSU Procedural Next Steps

As you know, UC/CSU sued us for breach of contract in March. At the same time they moved for a preliminary injunction to restore them to direct access during the pendency of the case. The district court granted their motion and issued the preliminary injunction. We appealed the granting of a preliminary injunction in these circumstances, and, in addition, asked the Court of Appeals to stay the effect of the district court's order until our appeal could be heard.

The Court of Appeals granted our request for a stay. Because of the similarity beween the legal tests for granting a stay and for granting of preliminary injunction, to grant the stay the Court of Appeals necessarily had to find, at least preliminarily, that the district court likely erred in granting the preliminary injunction. This is why we think we will win our appeal, especially if it is heard by the same panel. (Whether or not it is heard by the same panel depends on the clerk of the Court of Appeals and the schedules of the judges.)

We filed our brief in support of our appeal on May 14. UC/CSU's and the AG's answering briefs must be filed by June 11. Our reply brief is due 14 days after their briefs are filed. The appeal is then referred to a 3-judge panel. Oral argument is usually allowed.

If we win the appeal, UC/CSU campuses in PG&E and SCE territory remain on utililty service until a final decision is made in the case. If we lose the appeal, we have to take them back until a final decision in made in the case. The appeal relates only to the preliminary injunction. The breach of contract action remains to be tried at the district court level.

The contract expires March 31, 2002. In the ordinary course a final decision in the case would not be made by then. The judge, however, could expedite the proceedings so that a decision could be made earlier. UC/CSU could also move for summary judgment, arguing that that facts are not in dispute and that the judge should rule without a trial. In either event, it would seem unlikely that a final decision even on a expedited basis could be handed down before late fall/winter.

Please call me with any questions. Thanks.