STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC et al, No. 5:2007cv05298 - Document 411 (E.D. Pa. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY IN NEW JERSEY'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CONNECTICUT'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/28/13. 3/28/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff vs. RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, RRI ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC., SITHE ENERGIES, INC., now known as Dynegy, Inc., and METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., Defendants and STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Intervenor-Plaintiff vs. RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, RRI ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC., SITHE ENERGIES, INC., now known as Dynegy, Inc., and METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., Intervenor-Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 07-cv-05298 O R D E R NOW, this 28th day of March, 2013, upon consideration of the following documents: (1) Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 27, 2012 (Document 251), together with (A) Memorandum in Support of Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 251-1); (B) (2) Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute filed by defendant Metropolitan Edison Company on August 7, 2012 (Document 253), together with (A) (3) Exhibits 1 through 26 to defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s memorandum (Documents 251-2 through 251-5); Exhibits 1 through 26 to defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s statement of facts (Documents 253-1 through 2534)1; Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Connecticut s Opposition to Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment, which opposition was filed August 17, 2012 (Document 257), together with (A) (B) (4) Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Connecticut s Statement of Material Disputed Facts in Opposition to Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 257-1); Exhibits 1 intervenor opposition (Documents through 27 to plaintiffState of Connecticut s to summary judgment 257-2 through 259-3)2; Plaintiff New Jersey s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment, which opposition was filed August 17, 2012 (Document 261), together with (A) Plaintiff New Jersey s Statement of 1 The Exhibits attached to defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s statement of facts are identical to the Exhibits attached to their memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. 2 Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Connecticut does not label the attachments to its opposition. However, Connecticut supplied the court with a courtesy copy of its papers, which separate the attachments into 27 exhibits. Connecticut s 27 exhibits are identical to New Jersey s 27 exhibits. -ii- Facts in Opposition to Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 261-1); (B) (C) Exhibits NJ-1 through NJ-27 to plaintiff State of New Jersey s declaration of counsel (Documents 261-3 through 26110); (D) Declaration of Alan Dresser (Document 261-11), together with (E) (5) Declaration of Counsel in Support of Opposition to Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 261-2), together with Exhibits A through C to the declaration of Alan Dresser (Document 261-12); Metropolitan Edison Company s Reply to States Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, which reply was filed on September 17, 2012 (Document 265), together with (A) Metropolitan Edison Company s Reply to States Statement of Material Facts in Opposition, which reply was filed September 5, 2013 (Document 262-2); (B) Declaration of Counsel in Support of Metropolitan Edison Company s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, which declaration was filed September 5, 2013 (Document 262-3); (C) Exhibits 27 through 40 filed September 5, 2013 (Documents 262-2 through 262-8); (D) Rosenthal Ex. 1 through 20 filed September 5, 2013 (Documents 262-9 through 262-12)3; 3 Exhibit 34 to defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s reply is an Affidavit of Roberta A. Rosenthal in Support of Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 262-6). -iii- (6) Plaintiff New Jersey s Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment, which surreply was filed October 2, 2012 (Document 269); (7) Supplemental Evidence filed by plaintiff State of New Jersey on February 13, 2013 (Document 355); (8) Supplemental Evidence filed by defendant Metropolitan Edison Company on February 13, 2013 (Document 356); (9) Supplemental Brief in Support of Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment, which brief was filed February 27, 2013 (Document 385-1); (10) Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Supplemental Brief Regarding Gabelli in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, which memorandum was filed March 11, 2013 (Document 393); and (11) Metropolitan Edison Company s Reply to States Opposition to Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, which reply was filed March 14, 2013 (Document 401-1); after oral argument conducted February 22, 2013; and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the claims asserted against defendant Metropolitan Edison Company in New Jersey s Second Amended Complaint and Connecticut s Second Amended Complaint-inIntervention are dismissed with prejudice. BY THE COURT: /s/ James Knoll Gardner James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge -iv-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
