U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2006

Port of Seattle v. Avista Corp.

Port of Seattle v. Avista Corp.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided March 30, 2006 · Fitzgerald, Tallman, Thomas
175 F. App'x 827

Counsel

Philip L. Chabot, Jr., Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff—Appellant., Evan L. Schwab, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Kirstin S. Dodge, Esq., Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, Kenneth R. Heitz, Esq., Irell & Manella, LLP, Alan Z. Yudkowsky, Esq., Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Los Angeles, CA, William F. Martson, Jr., Esq., Steven M. Wilker, Esq., Tonkon Torp, LLP, Mark A. Turner, Esq., Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson & Skerritt, Portland, OR, Gary D. Bachman, Esq., Bellevue, WA, Deanna Lyn King, Esq., Brace-well & Giuliani, LLP, Austin, TX, Andrew M. Edison, Esq., J. Clifford Gunter, III, Esq., Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, Houston, TX, Steven J. Rosenbaum, Esq., Covington & Burling, Van Ness Feldman, Washington, DC, Michael J. Weaver, Esq., Latham & Watkins, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants—Appellees., David M. Brenner, Esq., Riddell Williams, PS, Andrew R. Gala, Esq., Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Seattle, WA, George S. Canellos, Esq., Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants., Thomas L. Boeder, Esq., Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, Gordon P. Erspamer, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, Rex Blackburn, Esq., Blackburn Jones LLP, Boise, ID, for Defendants/Defendants—Appellees.

Port of Seattle v. Avista Corp.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER **

The Port of Seattle (“Port”) appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of its claims arising from its payment of wholesale electricity rates. The dismissal of the action by the district court is affirmed on the ground that the Port’s claims are barred by the doctrine of conflict preemption. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; Gadda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 934, 946 (9th Cir. 2004) (as amended), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 876, 125 S.Ct. 275, 160 L.Ed.2d 127 (2004). The Port’s requested relief squarely conflicts with existing FERC proceedings and orders. To avoid interfering with these proceedings, this case is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.