Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., No. 12828.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
Writing for the CourtGuthrie, Darling & Shattuck, & Milo V. Olson, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff
Citation102 F. Supp. 685
PartiesINTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. et al.
Docket NumberNo. 12828.
Decision Date29 January 1952

102 F. Supp. 685

INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO.
v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. et al.

No. 12828.

United States District Court S. D. California, Central Division.

January 29, 1952.


Guthrie, Darling & Shattuck, & Milo V. Olson, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

102 F. Supp. 686

T. J. Reynolds and L. T. Rice, Los Angeles, Cal., for Southern Cal. Gas Co.

Milford Springer, Los Angeles, Cal., for Southern Counties Gas Co.

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Turner H. McBaine, Byron E. Kabot, all of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Southern Calif. Gas Co. and Southern Counties Gas Co.

BYRNE, District Judge.

During the period from October 18, 1948 until October 25, 1950, Interstate Natural Gas Company had control of the production of natural gas which it desired to ship and sell in interstate commerce. It requested defendants, as transporters, to accomodate its supply of natural gas through defendants' pipeline to commercial and industrial users in Southern California. Defendants refused. Plaintiff filed this action for damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of defendants' refusal.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants' conduct was in violation of the provisions of the Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, 30 U.S.C.A. § 185, of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717, and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 and 2.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

The substance of the pertinent allegations of the complaint may be stated as follows: The defendants, during the period referred to in the complaint, were engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce and owned a pipeline system located in the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Defendants' pipeline was constructed upon rights-of-way across government lands under permits granted by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of the Leasing Act of February 25, 1920. 30 U.S.C.A. § 185. That Act required defendants to maintain such pipelines as a common carrier. Defendants agreed in writing with the Secretary of the Interior that the pipeline would be operated and maintained as a common carrier. As a common carrier of natural gas it was the duty of defendants to file a common carrier tariff and schedules showing rates and charges with the Federal Power Commission, and to transport gas for plaintiff and other shippers at reasonable and non-discriminatory rates. Pursuant to the provisions of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 717, the rates and schedules for the transportation of gas were subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. Notwithstanding demands made upon them by plaintiff, defendants refused to file any rate or tariff, and refused to transport any gas for plaintiff. On October 25, 1950 defendant El Paso Natural Gas Company filed a purported rate with the Federal Power Commission for the transportation of gas through defendants' pipeline. Defendants Southern California Gas Company and Southern Counties Gas Company have never filed any rate. During the period mentioned plaintiff controlled gas in the vicinity of defendants' pipeline which it desired to ship to Southern California. Because defendants refused to act as a common carrier and transport gas for plaintiff through their pipeline, plaintiff was unable to ship or sell gas and suffered damages. Defendants, in refusing to perform their duty as a common carrier and to transport gas for any person, including plaintiff, at a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate, dominated and monopolized the trade, producing, marketing, transporting and selling natural gas from Texas and New Mexico through the State of Arizona to California. By such monopoly defendants eliminated plaintiff as a competitor. Defendants Southern California Gas Company and Southern Counties Gas Company, on or about December 17, 1945, entered into a contract with defendant El Paso Natural Gas Company whereby said defendants purportedly obligated themselves to purchase from El Paso Natural Gas Company 91% of defendants' pipeline capacity. It is alleged that said contract is contrary to the anti-trust laws in that defendant used that contract as an excuse for not transporting plaintiff's gas.

The defendants contend that the common carrier provision of the Mineral Leasing Act was superseded and repealed by the

102 F. Supp. 687
Natural Gas Act, and that their pipeline is not a common carrier

Assuming, arguendo, that the defendants' pipeline is a common carrier, this action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action because primary administrative jurisdiction is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Woods Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Aluminum Co. of Amer., Civ. A. No. 14669.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 29, 1968
    ...with the Federal Power Commission's regulation of the natural gas industry. Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., 102 F.Supp. 685, 103 F.Supp. 317 (S.D.Cal.1952), aff'd, 209 F.2d 380 (9th Cir. 1953). Moreover, the activities made the subject matter of the instant suit invo......
  • Utah Gas Pipelines Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., No. C 103-64.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • October 5, 1964
    ...Code Annotated 1953). Reliance is placed upon Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. Southern 233 F. Supp. 960 California Gas Co., D.C.S.D.Cal., 102 F. Supp. 685 (1952), rehearing 103 F.Supp. 317 (1952), affirmed 9th Cir., 209 F.2d 380 (1953); McClellan v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., D.C.D.Minn., 104......
  • McClellan v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Civ. No. 3518.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • March 5, 1952
    ...District of California, in an opinion rendered January 29, 1952, in Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., D.C., 102 F. Supp. 685. There plaintiff claimed damages alleged to have been suffered by virtue of defendant's refusal to transport gas which plaintiff desired to s......
  • Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., No. 13373.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 29, 1953
    ...was in the Federal Power Commission and that appellant 209 F.2d 383 had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, D.C., 102 F.Supp. 685. Appellant filed an amended complaint which was also dismissed on the same ground, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 317. The pertinent allegations of the amended com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Woods Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Aluminum Co. of Amer., Civ. A. No. 14669.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 29, 1968
    ...with the Federal Power Commission's regulation of the natural gas industry. Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., 102 F.Supp. 685, 103 F.Supp. 317 (S.D.Cal.1952), aff'd, 209 F.2d 380 (9th Cir. 1953). Moreover, the activities made the subject matter of the instant suit invo......
  • Utah Gas Pipelines Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., No. C 103-64.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • October 5, 1964
    ...Code Annotated 1953). Reliance is placed upon Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. Southern 233 F. Supp. 960 California Gas Co., D.C.S.D.Cal., 102 F. Supp. 685 (1952), rehearing 103 F.Supp. 317 (1952), affirmed 9th Cir., 209 F.2d 380 (1953); McClellan v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., D.C.D.Minn., 104......
  • McClellan v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Civ. No. 3518.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • March 5, 1952
    ...District of California, in an opinion rendered January 29, 1952, in Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., D.C., 102 F. Supp. 685. There plaintiff claimed damages alleged to have been suffered by virtue of defendant's refusal to transport gas which plaintiff desired to s......
  • Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Southern California Gas Co., No. 13373.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 29, 1953
    ...was in the Federal Power Commission and that appellant 209 F.2d 383 had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, D.C., 102 F.Supp. 685. Appellant filed an amended complaint which was also dismissed on the same ground, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 317. The pertinent allegations of the amended com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT