Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 1 of 44
`
`JUSTIN P. RAPHAEL (SBN 292380)
`justin.raphael@mto.com
`CARSON SCOTT (SBN 339868)
`carson.scott@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`560 Mission St. San Francisco CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 512-4000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric
`Company
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.: 5:25-cv-1286
`[Removed from the Superior Court of the
`State of California, Santa Cruz County,
`Case No. 24CV03543]
`
`DEFENDANT PACIFIC GAS AND
`ELECTRIC COMPANY’S NOTICE OF
`REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL
`COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`AND 1441(a)
`
`MICHAEL E. BOYD,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
`COMMISSION, KAREN DOUGLAS,
`MARTHA GUZMAN-ACEVES, DARCIE
`HOUCK, KELLY HYMES, GAVIN
`NEWSOM, WAYNE PARKER, CARLA
`PETERMAN, CLIFFORD
`RECHTSCHAFFEN, JOHN REYNOLDS,
`ALICE REYNOLDS, GENEVIEVE
`SHIROMA in their individual and official
`capacities, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
`COMPANY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
`EDISON COMPANY, SAN DIEGO GAS
`AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Does 1 through
`100,
`Defendants.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT PG&E PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a)
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”)
`hereby removes this action currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
`of Santa Cruz, Case No. 24CV03543, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a).
`TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
`Plaintiff Michael E. Boyd filed this action in the Superior Court of the State of
`1.
`California, County of Santa Cruz on December 16, 2024. Ex. C (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). On
`December 18, 2024, Plaintiff caused to be mailed to Defendant PG&E’s registered agent a copy of
`the summons and the Complaint, along with a Notice and Acknowledgment form. PG&E signed the
`Notice on January 7, 2025—within the prescribed 20-day time period—and returned the executed
`copy to Plaintiff. Ex. E. Service is deemed complete upon a defendant’s execution of the Notice
`and Acknowledgement. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 415.30(c). Thus, PG&E was served on January 7,
`2025.
`
`This Notice of Removal is therefore timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because it is
`2.
`being filed within 30 days of service.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`Defendant PG&E provides natural gas and electric service to approximately 16
`3.
`million customers in northern and central California.
`Plaintiff alleges that he is a customer of PG&E; that he has solar panels on the roof of
`4.
`his home in Soquel, California; and that he has “sought through the FERC’s certification process to
`get access to the wholesale energy markets regulated by FERC.” Compl. ¶¶ 7-9.
`Plaintiff alleges that PG&E, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego
`5.
`Gas and Electric Company (the “investor-owned utilities”, or “IOUs”), together with the California
`Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), CPUC staff members, and current and former state officials,
`including Governor Gavin Newsom (collectively, “Defendants”), have engaged in a conspiracy to
`violate the antitrust laws allegedly evidenced by the CPUC’s December 19, 2022 decision revising
`the operative Net Energy Metering (“NEM”) Tarriff and the administrative proceedings in
`
`
`-2-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT PG&E PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`connection with that decision. Compl. ¶ 15. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions have injured
`him “by restraining competition and thereby raising the retail price of electricity above what would
`have occurred if access to the wholesale electricity markets by small [Qualifying Facilities] had
`occurred.” Compl. ¶ 39.
`Plaintiff alleges three causes of action. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
`6.
`violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Compl. ¶¶ 36-42. Second, Plaintiff alleges
`that Defendants violated the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seq. Compl. ¶¶ 43-
`47. Third, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for Unjust Enrichment. Compl. ¶¶ 48-51.
`Plaintiff seeks, among other remedies, an injunction against Defendants’ allegedly
`7.
`wrongful conduct and monetary relief, including restitution and treble damages. Compl. at Prayer
`for Relief.
`
`GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
`This case is removable because Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for violation of a
`8.
`federal statute, Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
`Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under
`9.
`the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “When such a case is
`filed in state court, defendants may remove it to federal court.” County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA,
`Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Federal-question
`jurisdiction arises most obviously for rights of action conferred by a federal statute or constitutional
`provision.” Astra USA, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d at 1025. “[E]ven if only one of the claims falls under
`federal-question jurisdiction, all may be heard here.” Id. at 1025-26.
`Plaintiff alleges a cause of action against Defendants under the Sherman Act, 15
`10.
`U.S.C. § 1, thus asserting a claim that directly “aris[es] under” the laws of the United States. 28
`U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim would be subject to the original
`jurisdiction of the federal courts. The case may therefore be removed to this Court.
`Indeed, “federal antitrust claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal
`11.
`courts.” Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 759 F.2d 1434, 1437 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Gen. Inv. Co. v.
`Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 260 U.S. 261, 287 (1922) (“This suit was brought in a state court, and in
`
`
`-3-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT PG&E PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`so far as its purpose was to enjoin a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that court could not
`entertain it.”). Accordingly, “[i]f a suit under the federal antitrust laws is filed in a state court, it is
`removable.” Washington v. Am. League of Pro. Baseball Clubs, 460 F.2d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 1972).
`There is no cause for this Court to sever and remand either of Plaintiff’s state law
`12.
`claims, which are both comfortably within this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
`A federal district court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share
`13.
`a “common nucleus of operative fact” with a federal claim that is properly subject to the court’s
`jurisdiction. City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 165 (1997); see 28 U.S.C.
`1367(a).
`Each of Plaintiff’s state law claims arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as
`14.
`his federal Sherman Act claim. Plaintiff alleges his Cartwright Act claim nearly verbatim to his
`Sherman Act claim. Indeed, both antitrust claims are centered on the allegation that “Defendants’
`anticompetitive and unlawful conduct has . . . restrain[ed] competition [] thereby raising the retail
`price of electricity above what would have occurred if access to the wholesale electricity markets by
`small QFs had occurred.” Compl. ¶ 39 (Sherman Act Claim); Compl. ¶ 46 (Cartwright Act Claim).
`And the gravamen of Plaintiff’s Unjust Enrichment claim is the same: that Defendants somehow
`acted to limit access to the wholesale electricity market, thereby increasing the price of retail
`electricity. See Compl. ¶ 51. (“[A]s a result of Defendants’ unjust conduct . . . he paid more for
`retail electricity than its fair value would have allowed if Mr. Boyd had been able to participate in
`the wholesale electricity market.”). Plaintiff pleads no additional or separate facts to support this
`claim; instead, he incorporates by reference his prior allegations, which focus on the purported
`antitrust conspiracy. Compl. ¶ 48. Accordingly, this Court may properly exercise supplemental
`jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
`ALL SERVED DEFENDANTS CONSENT TO REMOVAL
`Counsel for PG&E are not aware of any other defendant who has been properly
`15.
`served. The docket for this action in the Santa Cruz Superior Court does not include any proof of
`service for any other defendant. See Ex. A (Register of Actions). “Because none of the non-joining
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT PG&E PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a)
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`defendants was properly served, their absence from the removal notice [does] not render the removal
`defective.” Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2011).
`PG&E SATISFIED ALL OTHER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL
`The United States District Court for the Northern District of California is the
`16.
`appropriate venue for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because it is the federal jurisdiction
`encompassing the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz, where this suit
`was originally filed.
`Copies of all process, pleadings, and orders from the state court action being removed
`17.
`to this Court that PG&E has obtained from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
`Santa Cruz and which are in the possession of PG&E are attached hereto as Exhibits B-G. Pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), this constitutes “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders” received by
`PG&E in the action.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), PG&E will promptly file a copy of this Notice of
`18.
`Removal, as well as a Notice of Filing of this Notice of Removal, with the Clerk of the Superior
`Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz, and serve a copy of the same on Plaintiff.
`This Notice of Removal is signed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, as required by 28
`19.
`U.S.C. § 1446(a).
`
`NON-WAIVER OF DEFENSES
`PG&E reserves all rights, defenses, and objections available under applicable law,
`20.
`including without limitation its right to enforce agreements to arbitrate or any challenges to personal
`jurisdiction, insufficient process, and/or insufficient service of process, and the filing of this Notice
`of Removal is subject to, and without waiver of, any such defenses or objections. PG&E also
`reserves the right to amend or supplement this Notice of Removal.
`By removing this action from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
`21.
`Santa Cruz, PG&E does not admit any of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`WHEREFORE, PG&E respectfully gives notice that this action is hereby removed from the
`Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz to the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California.
`
`
`-5-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT PG&E PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`DATED: February 6, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Justin P. Raphael
`Justin P. Raphael
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Gas
`and Electric Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL BY DEFENDANT PG&E PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a)
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 7 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 7 of 44
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 8 of 44
`
`Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz
`
`Case Summary
`
`Case No. 24CV03543
`
`Location: Civil
`Judicial Officer: Cogliati, Syda Kosofsky
`Filed on: 12/16/2024
`
`§ § §
`
`Michael Boyd vs Gavin Newsom, et al
`
`File Date 12/17/2024
`Cause of Action
`Complaint
`
`Case Information
`
`Description/Remedy
`Action
`$0.00 Monetary
`$0.00 Nonmonetary; Declaratory or
`Injunctive Relief
`$0.00 Punitive
`
`Case Type:
`
`(03) Unlimited Antitrust / Trade
`Regulation
`Case Status: 12/16/2024 Active
`
`Party Information
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Boyd, Michael E
`
`Pro Se
`
`Defendant California Public Utilities Commission
`
`Douglas, Karen
`
`Guzman-Aceves, Martha
`
`Houck, Darcie
`
`Hymes, Kelly
`
`Newsom, Gavin
`
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company
`
`Parker, Wayne
`
`Peterman, Carla
`
`Rechtschaffen, Clifford
`
`Reynolds, Alice
`
`Reynolds, John
`
`San Diego Gas and Electric Company
`
`Shiroma, Genevieve
`
`Southern California Edison Company
`
`Causes of Action
`
`12/17/2024 Cause of Action Complaint
`Action Type Action
`Remedies Sought
`Monetary
`Nonmonetary; Declaratory or Injunctive Relief
`Punitive
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE 1 OF 3
`
`Printed on 02/06/2025 at 8:36 AM
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Events
`
`02/03/2025
`
`01/13/2025
`
`Stipulation & Order
`Party: Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company
`
`Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt
`Date 2: 01/07/2025
`Party: Plaintiff Boyd, Michael E
`
`12/17/2024 Complex Case Designation
`Party: Plaintiff Boyd, Michael E
`
`12/16/2024
`
`12/16/2024
`
`12/16/2024
`
`Civil Case Cover Sheet
`
`Complaint Filed
`
`Summons Issued / Filed
`
`04/15/2025
`
`Case Management Conference (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer: Cogliati, Syda Kosofsky)
`
`Hearings
`
`Service Events
`
`01/07/2025 30 Day Summons
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company served
`
`12/16/2024 30 Day Summons Requested by: Boyd, Michael E
`Newsom, Gavin
`Issued
`California Public Utilities Commission
`Issued
`Douglas, Karen
`Issued
`Guzman-Aceves, Martha
`Issued
`Houck, Darcie
`Issued
`Hymes, Kelly
`Issued
`Parker, Wayne
`Issued
`Peterman, Carla
`Issued
`Rechtschaffen, Clifford
`Issued
`Reynolds, John
`Issued
`Reynolds, Alice
`Issued
`Shiroma, Genevieve
`Issued
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company
`Issued
`Serving Method: Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt
`Southern California Edison Company
`
`Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz
`
`Case Summary
`
`Case No. 24CV03543
`
`
`
`PAGE 2 OF 3
`
`Printed on 02/06/2025 at 8:36 AM
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 10 of 44
`
`Issued
`San Diego Gas and Electric Company
`Issued
`
`Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz
`
`Case Summary
`
`Case No. 24CV03543
`
`
`
`PAGE 3 OF 3
`
`Printed on 02/06/2025 at 8:36 AM
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 11 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 11 of 44
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 12 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 12 of 44
`
`SUMMONS
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`
`SUM-100
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
` (SOLO PARA USODE LA CORTE)
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`California Public Utilities Commission, Karen Douglas, Martha Guzman-Aceves, Darcie Houck, Kelly Hymes, Gavin
`Newsom, Wayne Parker, Carla Peterman, Clifford Rechtschaffen, John Reynolds, Alice Reynolds ,Genevieve
`Shiromain their individual and official capacities, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison
`Company, San SEING& and Electric Company, Does 1 through 100
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BYPLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`Michael E. Boyd
`
`
`
`
`ILE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`below.
`
`
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYSafter this summonsand legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`served onthe plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response mustbe in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county lawlibrary, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay thefiling fee, ask the
`
`
`court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may
`be taken without further warning from the court.
`
`
`There are other legal requirements. You may wantto call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may wantto call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may beeligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`
`
`
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Website (www./awhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`
`(www. courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`
`
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or morein a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`jAVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versién. Lea la informaci6n a
`
`
`continuaci6n.
`
`
`Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`
`
`corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefénica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
`
`
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso enla corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`
`
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de /a corte y mas informacién en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`
`
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagarla cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte que
`
`
`le dé un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra
`
`
`quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`
`
`Hayotros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que ilame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede /lamara un servicio de
`
`
`remisién a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtenerservicios legales gratuitos de un
`
`
`programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomia, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniéndose en contacto con la corte o el
`
`
`colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Porley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamarlas cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derechocivil. Tiene que
`
`pagar el gravamende Ia corte antes de que la corte pueda desecharel caso.
`CASE NUMBER:
`wi
`The name and addressof the court is:
`(Némero del Caso):
`(El nombre y direccién de la corte es):
`
`701 Ocean St., Santa Cruz CA 95060
`
`24CV03543
`
`The name, address, and telephone numberofplaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney,is:
`(El nombre, la direccién y el numero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`Michael E. Boyd 5439 Soquel Drive, Soquel CA 95073, (408) 891-9677
`
`
`DATE:
`Clerk, by
`(Fecha) D EC 1 6 2024
`(Secretario)
`
`
`
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citati6n use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-070)).
`(SEAL]
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: Youare served
`1.
`[__] asanindividual defendant.
`2.
`[__] as the person sued underthefictitious name of (specify):
`
`gotOF
`
`OS
`
`[__] by personal delivery on (date):
`
`[[_] on behalfof (specify):
`under:[___] CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`[__] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`[___] CCP 416.40(association or partnership)
`[__] other(specify):
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judicial Council of California
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`SUMMONS
`
`[___] CCP 416.60 (minor)
`[__] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`[__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`
`Page 1 of 1
`Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`www.courts.ca.gov
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 13 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 13 of 44
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 14 of 44 Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`
`
`Filed 02/06/25
`
`Page 14 of 44
`
`1||Michael E. Boyd
`5439 Soquel Drive
`2|Soquel CA 95073
`3
`In Pro Per
`Phone: (408) 891-9677
`4||Email: boyd.michaele@gmail.com
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`5
`|
`COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
`6
`
`7||MICHAEL E. BOYD, CaseNo. 240 V03543
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
`8
`VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT
`v.
`9
`(15 U.S.C. §§ 1) AND OF THE
`
`19||CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES CARTWRIGHT ACT (CAL. BUS. &
`COMMISSION, KAREN DOUGLAS,
`PROF. CODE §§ 16720 ET SEQ.) AND
`
`11||MARTHA GUZMAN-ACEVES, DARCIE FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`HOUCK, KELLY HYMES, GAVIN
`
`13 PETERMAN, CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN,
`JOHN REYNOLDS, ALICE REYNOLDS,
`14||GENEVIEVE SHIROMAintheir individual
`and official capacities, PACIFIC GAS AND
`15||ELECTRIC COMPANY, SOUTHERN
`CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, SAN
`16||DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`7 Does | through 100,
`
`12||NEWSOM, WAYNE PARKER, CARLA DEMANDFOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendants.
`
`Oeereere
`
`19
`
`20
`
`PLAINTIFF MICHAELE. BOYD(“Mr. Boydor Plaintiff’), on behalf of himself brings
`
`21||this Complaint for violations of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and of the Cartwright Act (Cal.
`
`22
`
`||Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seg.)
`
`requesting damages,
`
`restitution, non-restitutionary
`
`23||disgorgement, and injunctive relief against named Defendants.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1.
`
`The Defendants are PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (“PG&E”),
`
`DEFENDENTS
`
`26||SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY(“SCE”), SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
`
`27||COMPANY(“SDG&E”), California Governor GAVIN NEWSOM (“NEWSOM”), CALIFORNIA
`
`2g
`
`||PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (“CPUC”), CPUC President ALICE REYNOLDS
`
`Verified Complaint for Violations of the Sherman & Cartwright Acts
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 15 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 15 of 44
`
`(“REYNOLDS”),
`
`former
`
`Commissioner
`
`CLIFFORD
`
`RECHTSCHAFFEN
`
`(“RECHTSCHAFFEN”),
`
`former Commissioner GENEVIEVE SHIROMA (“SHIROMA”),
`
`Commissioner DARCIE HOUCK (“HOUCK”), Commissioner
`
`JOHN REYNOLDS
`
`(“REYNOLDS”), Commissioner KAREN DOUGLAS (“DOUGLAS”), Administrative Law Judge
`
`KELLY HYMES (“HYMES”), former Commissioner CARLA PETERMAN (“PETERMAN”),
`
`former Commissioner MARTHA GUZMAN-ACEVES (“GUZMAN-ACEVES”),
`
`and Cal
`
`Advocates WAYNE PARKER (“PARKER”), (collectively, “Defendants”) and unidentified Doe
`
`Defendants. All allegations herein other than those relating to Plaintiff are based on information and
`
`belief.
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Boyd is not aware of the true names and capacities of defendants, whether
`
`individual, government, corporate, affiliate, or otherwise, sued herein underthe fictitious names
`
`DOES 1| through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues those defendants by fictitious names. Each
`
`fictitiously named defendant is responsible in some manner for the violations of law alleged. Mr.
`
`Boyd will amend this Complaint to add the true namesofthe fictitiously named defendants once
`
`they are discovered, as well as the mannerin which each fictitious defendant is responsible for the
`
`violations of law herein alleged, when these facts are ascertained.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`2.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to California Code of
`
`Civil Procedure § 410.10.
`
`4.
`
`In the state courts, CPUC Decisionsare subject to administrative and judicial review
`
`upona party’s written request for a rehearing basedonlegal error. If the CPUC denies a request, the
`
`party may appealto the California Supreme Court, and a Decision may be appealed to the Court of
`
`Appeals.
`
`a
`
`In Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d
`
`308] (Cellular Plus), consumers and corporate sales agents, including Cellular Plus, broughtsuit
`
`against two cellular telephone service companies, claiming price fixing under the Cartwright Act
`
`(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.). (Cellular Plus, at p. 1229.) The trial court sustained demurrers
`
`to those claims, apparently finding they were barred by section 1759. (14 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231.)
`
`aoS
`
`SSYDHNN
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`-3
`
`24
`
`26
`
`ae
`
`28
`
`z
`Verified Complaint for Violations of the Sherman & Cartwright Acts
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 16 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 16 of 44
`
`The companies asserted the demurrer properly had been granted becausethetrial court proceedings
`would interfere with the commission's overall primary jurisdiction over rates charged by public
`utilities. (/d. at p. 1246.) The appellate court disagreed. "We cannot conceive how a price fixing
`claim under the Cartwright Act could “hinder or frustrate” the CPUC's supervisory or regulatory
`policies. The only apparent policy of the CPUC that could be affected is its regulation of rates
`
`charged by cellular telephone service providers. However, Cellular Plus does not dispute that the
`CPUChasjurisdiction overrates, nor doesit seek any relief requiring the CPUC to change any rates
`it has approved. Cellular Plus is merely seeking treble damages and injunctive relief for alleged
`price fixing under the Cartwright Act." (/bid.; and see Covalt, supra, at p. 919.) In addition,
`
`10
`
`although not directly applicable to the companies' arguments about section 1759, the Court of
`
`Appeal recognized the PUC does not have jurisdiction over antitrust violations. (Cellular Plus,
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Ze
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`supra, at p. 1247.)
`
`In Cellular Plus, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, the commission had no legitimate
`6.
`regulatory interest in the claims underlying the plaintiffs' complaints. It had no authority to respond
`to antitrust claims and no authority to respond to claims a transaction would be unfair to minority
`shareholders. That the claims were brought againstpublic utilities did not, in andofitself, invest the
`
`commission with regulatory authority over them,nordid it matterthat the plaintiffs might have been
`
`entitled to relief for action that had been approved by the commission.
`
`ie
`
`Atall relevant times Mr. Boyd has been a customer of PG&E.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`8.
`On March 19, 2003. Mr. Boyd filed a “Qualifying Facility [QF] Notice of Self-
`Certification located in Santa Cruz County, California”! with the Federal Energy Regulatory
`Commission (FERC).
`
`Mr. Boyd has solar panels on the roof of his home at 5439 Soquel Drive Soquel
`2.
`California 95073 and lead acid batteries backupinstalled in 2002 [andstill operational] and he
`
`' Submittal 200303 19-5001, 03/19/2003, QF03-76-000, Qualifying Facility Notice of Self-
`Certification located in Santa Cruz County, California of Boyd Michael Trusteeet. al. under
`QF03-76. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=9662085
`* https://www.ferc.gov
`
`
`Z
`Verified Complaint for Violations of the Sherman & Cartwright Acts
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 17 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 17 of 44
`
`sought through the FERC’s certification process to get access to the wholesale energy markets
`
`regulated by the FERC. Mr. Boyd’s efforts have been thwarted by Defendants.
`
`10.
`
`On June 10, 2011, Mr. Boyd [and CARE]filed an enforcement action against the
`
`CPUC underthe Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)with the Central District
`
`of California, Case U.S.D.C. C.D.CAL. No. CV 11-04975 SJO (JCGx). PURPA grants federal
`
`district courts jurisdiction to act on a QF's petition to force a state regulatory authority to implement
`
`a PURPArule orregulation.* This case is currently under appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeal
`
`YYDHWN&
`
`for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 23-55291.
`
`wy? WECC
`
`Certificate Quantities
`
`Filters: status: active:
`
`2024-12-15 22:26:44 UTC
`
`
`
`
`Seee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stentnocnensenrSoden|e[aeeves[1
`
`priesttoimennie[au[amen[1_[wocaceansacaraaries_
`
`
`prinnie-todiimety[ate[aeons[1[ecnonammascaonsins
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13830-CA-11-2022-SDB00C40-1 to 1
`
`Boyd residencesolar - Boyd residence solar
`
`2022-11-01
`
`Figure 1
`Mr. Boyd is the President of the Board of Directors of the nonprofit corporation
`
`11.
`
`716. U.S.C. §824a-3(h) (2) (2006).
`
`. may petition the Commission to
`.
`* Section 210(h)(2)(B) provides that: “Any electric utility .
`enforce the requirements of subsection(f) of this section as provided in subparagraph (A) ofthis
`paragraph. If the Commission does not initiate an enforcement action under subparagraph (A)
`against a State regulatory authority .. . within 60 days following the date on whicha petitionis filed
`under this subparagraph .
`.
`. the petitioner may bring an action in the appropriate United States
`district court to require such state regulatory authority .
`.
`. to comply with such requirements, and
`such court may issue such injunctive or other relief as may be appropriate... . 16 U.S.C. § 824a-
`3(h) (2) (B). Section 210(f), which is referenced in Section 210(h)(2), requires the state regulatory
`authority to make rules implementing the FERC's rules for regulated utilities in that state. See 16
`U.S.C. § 824a-3(f).
`
`4
`Verified Complaint for Violations of the Sherman & Cartwright Acts
`
`

`

`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document 1 Filed 02/06/25 Page 18 of 44
`Case 5:25-cv-01286-SVK Document1
`Filed 02/06/25
`Page 18 of 44
`
`CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE). CARE hasa business account with WREGIS*
`
`and Mr. Boyd’s 5.2kW PVsolar system is a Generating Unit. Mr. Boyd’s solar powerinverter’s AC
`
`output is connected to a revenue grade meter approved by WREGIS. The meter was interconnected
`
`on July 1, 2022, and through July 1, 2024, he has banked 6 MWh ofsolar power RECs produced.
`
`WECC®issued Mr. Boydcertificates for 6 renewable energy certificates or RECs [See Figure 1].
`
`These RECs would be tradeable to PG&E, but Defendants have denied Mr. Boyd’s access to the
`
`wholesale markets to trade his RECs and get compensated at PG&E’s full avoided cost as a QF
`
`regulated by the FERC.
`
`12.
`
`Mr. Boyd [along with CARE]is a Party in the CPUC’s Rulemaking (R.) 20-08-020
`
`proceedings.
`
`13.
`
`Following the December 19, 2022, issuance of Decision (D.)22-12-056 on January
`
`16, 2023, Mr. Boyd mailed his signed and completed Government Claim form’to the Office of Risk
`
`and Insurance Management Government Claims Program® P.O. Box 989052, MS 414 West
`
`Sacramento, CA 95798-9052, along with a check for $25. The check was cashed.
`
`14.
`
`This action is being filed within two years from the date of injury or damage,
`
`* WREGISis an independent, web-based tracking system for renewable energy certificates (REC)
`that covers the Western Interconnection territory. WREGISis a division of WECC.
`https://www.wecc.org/program-areas/wregis
`° The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)is a non-profit corporation that exists to
`assure a reliable Bulk Electric System in the geographic area known as the Western
`Interconnection. WECC has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`(FERC) as the Regional Entity for the Western Interconnection. The North American Electric
`Reliability Corporation (NERC) delegated someofits authority to create, monitor, and enforce
`reliability standards to WECC through a Delegation Agreement. https://www.wecc.org
`™ See CARE’s Application for Rehearing of Decision 22-12-056 pages 23-24.
`https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M501/K282/501282480.PDF
`* Before you maysue a publ