Opinion
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2006.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Page 828.
Philip L. Chabot, Jr., Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff--Appellant.
Evan L. Schwab, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Kirstin S. Dodge, Esq., Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, Kenneth R. Heitz, Esq., Irell & Manella, LLP, Alan Z. Yudkowsky, Esq., Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Los Angeles, CA, William F. Martson, Jr., Esq., Steven M. Wilker, Esq., Tonkon Torp, LLP, Mark A. Turner, Esq., Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson & Skerritt, Portland, OR, Gary D. Bachman, Esq., Bellevue, WA, Deanna Lyn King, Esq., Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, Austin, TX, Andrew M. Edison, Esq., J. Clifford Gunter, III, Esq., Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, Houston, TX, Steven J. Rosenbaum, Esq., Covington & Burling, Van Ness Feldman, Washington, DC, Michael J. Weaver, Esq., Latham & Watkins, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants--Appellees.
David M. Brenner, Esq., Riddell Williams, PS, Andrew R. Gala, Esq., Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Seattle, WA, George S. Canellos, Esq., Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Thomas L. Boeder, Esq., Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, Gordon P. Erspamer, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, Rex Blackburn, Esq., Blackburn Jones LLP, Boise, ID, for Defendants/Defendants--Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Hon. Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-02474-RHW.
Before: THOMAS and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District Judge.
The Honorable James M. Fitzgerald, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Port of Seattle ("Port") appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of its claims arising from its payment of wholesale electricity rates. The dismissal of the action by the district court is affirmed on the ground that the Port's claims are barred by the doctrine of conflict preemption. See U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2; Gadda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 934, 946 (9th Cir.2004) (as amended), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 876, 125 S.Ct. 275, 160 L.Ed.2d 127 (2004). The Port's requested relief squarely conflicts with existing FERC proceedings and orders. To avoid interfering with these proceedings, this case is dismissed.
DISMISSED.