TextSearch

The news keeps getting worse for California drivers.In a week when the price of a gallon of gas rose for the 18th consecutive day, notching an all-time record, a federal judge in San Diego has dismissed a class-action lawsuit that accused…

News As gas prices hit another record, judge dismisses class-action lawsuit accusing oil companies of colluding In a more than 100-page ruling, Judge Jinsook Ohta said there is not enough evidence of collusion to allow the case to proceed to trialShare this: Share on X (Opens in new window) X Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook Print (Opens in new window) Print Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit CNG Christina House??Los Angeles Times THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT says “California has veered outside of its proper constitutional lane” in reaching a climate deal with a foreign government. By Jeff McDonald | [email protected] | The San Diego Union-TribunePUBLISHED: October 5, 2022 at 8:00 AM PDT | UPDATED: October 6, 2022 at 9:31 PM PDTGetting your Trinity Audio player ready...The news keeps getting worse for California drivers. In a week when the price of a gallon of gas rose for the 18th consecutive day, notching an all-time record, a federal judge in San Diego has dismissed a class-action lawsuit that accused major oil companies of colluding to keep fuel costs artificially high. The decision was published by U.S. District Court Judge Jinsook Ohta late last week, seven months after lawyers representing the owners of a North County gas station squared off in her courtroom against some of the largest oil conglomerates in the world. In short, the judge ruled the plaintiffs could not establish that communications between traders from rival companies helped executives raise the cost of gasoline for California consumers. “While defendants would certainly have an economic motive to act in the manner alleged by plaintiffs, that alone cannot establish an antitrust violation,” the judge wrote in her 103-page ruling. “Antitrust wrongdoing consists of concerted action pursuant to an illegal agreement, not independent profit-maximizing actions based on market conditions,” she said. The decision, which affirmed a tentative ruling handed down ahead of the February hearing, comes as the average fuel price in San Diego has risen to a record $6.42 per gallon. As of Tuesday, the area’s average cost for a gallon of gas was up about 3 cents since Monday, 52 cents over the past week and $1.18 in the past month, according to the running AAA analysis of nationwide fuel costs. In February, when dozens of attorneys crowded into Judge Ohta’s courtroom to argue their respective positions on allegations of price-fixing, the average cost of a gallon of gas in San Diego was $4.75. Attorneys representing Persian Gulf Inc., the filling station in Escondido that is serving as lead plaintiff in the class-action litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the judge’s ruling. However, the plaintiffs’ counsel has waged the legal battle since 2015, so a request for review by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would not be a surprise. The defendants, entities that are owned by some of the richest energy corporations on the planet, include BP, Chevron, Shell Oil, ExxonMobil, Phillips 66, Alon USA and Tesoro. In court filings, the plaintiffs’ firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd argued that the oil companies coordinated their respective refinery operating and maintenance schedules, which affected how much gas was produced and ultimately cost consumers more than $20 billion in recent years alone. “They worked together to discourage imports, increase exports, keep their refineries running under capacity and manipulate prices through their trading activity,” they wrote in a court filing last year. “Defendants have reaped billions of dollars in profits from their scheme, and the massive price spike seen after the Torrance explosion has never returned to normal,” they added. Several of the defendants reached this week declined to comment on the ruling; others did not respond to requests for interviews. An ExxonMobil official issued a brief statement Tuesday. “We agree with the decision of the court,” spokesperson Todd Spitler said by email. In a litany of court filings dating back years and during the February hearing on the motion for summary judgment, oil company attorneys denied each of the allegations put forward by Persian Gulf Inc. and its lawyers. “After years of costly discovery, plaintiffs have zero evidence of this claimed agreement” between oil companies, they argued in briefs filed in advance of the hearing last spring. “Their attempts to infer a conspiracy … fall short of satisfying the governing legal standard,” the defense team said. “The conduct they identify is entirely consistent with non-conspiratorial, independent decision-making by individual defendants.” The lawsuit alleged that, among other practices, the oil companies signed “exchange agreements” between themselves that allowed the firms to move gas back and forth in ways that kept prices higher than they might be otherwise. Oil companies rejected the assertion that the agree...