Vanguard Energy Services v. Southern California Edison Company
Published: Nov. 23, 1996 | Result Date: Oct. 16, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: GC012221 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Alhambra
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Robert K. Wrede
(Offices of Robert K. Wrede)
Defendant
Peter J. Kennedy
(Reed Smith LLP)
Terry B. Bates
(Reed Smith LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Richard A. Casper
(technical)
Dan Gefis
(technical)
Defendant
Paul F. Sullivan
(Paul F. Sullivan & Associates APC)
(technical)
Richard W. Davis
(technical)
Facts
On Oct. 7, 1987, developer CSF Financial Corporation entered into a power purchase agreement with defendant Southern California Edison Company for the sale to Edison of electrical power to be generated by a cogeneration system being developed by CSF Financial. The cogeneration system was intended to be installed on the premises of EPS, a plating facility, by contractor Vanguard Solar Systems. As a result of a Public Utilities Commission ruling in December 1987, Tariff GS-1-PG was closed to new customers on Jan. 1, 1988. The cogeneration system was not interconnected to the Edison power system until sometime after Jan. 1, 1988. When the system was eventually operated, payments for electricity were made under Tariff GS-2 and GS-2 standby. The plaintiffs, Vanguard and EPS, brought this action against Edison based on breach of contract and third party breach theories of recovery. Plaintiff EPS' claim was dismissed after the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted against EPS and the defendant was awarded costs.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $600,000 with an indication that it would reduce its demand to $550,000. The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $150,000 to both plaintiffs (before EPS was dismissed). After the dismissal, the defendant reduced its offer to $65,000.
Damages
The plaintiff sought $700,000 in damages allegedly resulting from application of the new tariff.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and 10 months after the case was filed. MEDIATION: A mediation was held in the summer of 1995. It did not resolve the matter. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: The defendant's motion for judgment under C.C.P. º631.8 was granted following completion of the plaintiff's evidence. The motion was based on failure of an assignment of the operative contract and a statute of limitations bar. The defendant was award costs of $22,140.88
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390