Judge Won’t Alter Sempra Settlement
A California judge said Sempra Energy’s $1.89-billion settlement to resolve claims that it conspired to gouge consumers during the California energy crisis shouldn’t be modified to allow the state to file additional lawsuits.
Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager in San Diego rejected a request by lawyers for consumers in the lawsuit to rule that the settlement doesn’t prevent Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer from proceeding with additional suits on behalf of state agencies.
Sempra, owner of Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., has said the settlement prohibits additional lawsuits over similar claims that the company manipulated natural gas prices in 2000 and 2001. Talks for a settlement with Lockyer and state agencies broke down before San Diego-based Sempra agreed to resolve the class-action case in January.
“After the completion of extensive settlement negotiations†the request “alters the fundamental perspective of the parties’ respective bargaining positions,†Prager said in a ruling dated Wednesday.
Lawyers including Pierce O’Donnell and Thomas Girardi brought the class-action lawsuit against Sempra on behalf of the utility customers and valued the settlement at $1.89 billion. The agreement resolved claims that the company conspired to thwart competition in the natural gas market.
Sempra spokesman Doug Kline said the company expected Prager to issue his final approval of the settlement June 8. It’s up to other courts, not Prager, to determine how Sempra’s settlement applies to lawsuits filed by other entities, Kline said.
“The settlement agreement that’s in place is the subject of intense negotiations by all the parties involved over several months, and we continue to believe it should be approved by the court in its current form,†Kline said.
Lockyer has objected to the settlement because provisions in the agreement are “too broad†and address conduct unrelated to the case brought by the utility consumers, Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar said.
“Sempra treats this settlement like it’s a global resolution. It’s not,†Dresslar said. “The attorney general wants to make sure that this settlement does not wipe out the state’s claims because they have nothing to do with this lawsuit.â€
Craig Parsons, a spokesman for Girardi, said the ruling was anticipated because Prager had issued a similar tentative ruling.
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
