Antitrust state-action immunity argument postponed because of possible settlement

Posted Fri, March 9th, 2018 5:27 pm by Eric M. Fraser

Electrical lines along a Salt River Job canal

The Supreme Court docket was established to listen to argument on March 19 in Salt River Job v. Tesla Electrical power Operations Inc., but nowadays the court docket postponed oral argument and the circumstance might in the end settle right before argument.

This circumstance presents the question of irrespective of whether a district-court docket purchase denying antitrust condition-motion immunity might be appealed immediately, or only after a final judgment. The underlying dispute pits rooftop-photo voltaic organization SolarCity (now portion of Tesla) against Salt River Job, an Arizona electrical utility, in a battle about rooftop photo voltaic electricity generation. Just after SolarCity sued Salt River Job about antitrust promises, Salt River Job unsuccessfully moved to dismiss centered on the antitrust doctrine of condition-motion immunity. Salt River Job sought to attraction the district court’s denial of immunity to the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the 9th Circuit right before the district court docket entered final judgment. Whilst litigants generally will have to wait until eventually final judgment right before desirable, Salt River experimented with to invoke the “collateral-order” exception, under which specified interlocutory orders might be appealed immediately, with out ready for final judgment. The 9th Circuit dismissed the attraction and the Supreme Court docket granted certiorari to solve a circuit break up about irrespective of whether denials of antitrust condition-motion immunity are immediately appealable under the collateral-purchase doctrine.

Earlier this week the functions named the court docket and then filed a joint letter informing the court docket that they have “executed a memorandum of understanding” and that the circumstance might settle. Currently the court docket taken out the circumstance from the March 19 oral argument calendar and indicated that the argument will be rescheduled through the April argument session.

The Arizona Republic reported earlier this week that Salt River Project’s board has accepted settlement terms under which Salt River Job would purchase a substantial battery from SolarCity, start an incentive application for residential batteries and take a look at new desire costs for electricity.

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case. The author of this post is not affiliated with the firm.]

Posted in Salt River Job Agricultural Advancement and Energy District v. Tesla Electrical power Operations Inc., Highlighted, Deserves Cases, What is actually Occurring Now

Proposed Citation:
Eric M. Fraser,
Antitrust condition-motion immunity argument postponed simply because of possible settlement,
SCOTUSblog (Mar. 9, 2018, 5:27 PM),

Shares 0

Post Author: gupta

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *