10 December 2009

judge drell to cleco: motion to dismiss is hereby denied

city of alexandria v cleco corp et al
click here to download 38 page .pdf [1.74 mb]

today united states federal district court judge dee drell signed a thirty-eight page ruling and order in the city of alexandria's cleco fraud suit. the court gave extensive reasoning for its ruling.

after reviewing the background of the case the court turned its attention to the motion at hand which turned on frcp 12(b)(6) "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

judge drell then went on to show how that was not so and that alexandria has shown that it probably could at least put on a case if given the chance.

the court went all through cleco's arguments for dismissal. starting with the filed rate doctrine, which is what cleco based their argument on that ferc (federal energy regulatory commission) has the jurisdiction over the case instead of the court.

the court also noted that "ferc does not consider its own exclusive jurisdiction to extend to contract disputes, and indeed, would likely not assert primary jurisdiction over claims which amount to ordinary breach of contract claims."
interesting quote from page thirteen

next the court denied cleco's backup arguments to dismiss. which were the doctrine of federal premption and the other the doctrine of conflict preemption.

then the court -- just to be nice, went through all nine counts as they related to the courts reasoning in denying the motion.

on page fifteen the court reveals that "the city basically concedes that the rates themselves, as opposed to cleco's conduct, were reasonable." now thats a very interesting observation. we wonder why the media never reported this tidbit?

even though the court noted that its heard that discovery is still in its early stages when you take everything else it said altogether it doesnt seem that the city has such a strong case as we've been led to believe. it seems that judge drell threw them a bone.

the court also pointed out that "the extent of some of the city's allegations is simply unclear." and that the evidence is obscure as is any relief that may be granted.

it seems that the city is saying that it wasnt really over charged that much at all -- its just that cleco were jerks so we want to get paid.

will the so called audit of the so called cleco overcharges ever be released to the public? notice how the media ever mentions that anymore.