Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
California has a policy to promote the growth of clean energy and to that end they have enacted California Civil Code § 714. That section expressly states that “any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property, and any provision of a governing document, as defined in §§ 4150 or 6552, that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system is void and unenforceable.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 714(a).) However, § 714 goes on to say that it is inapplicable to “reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems.” (Id.) “Reasonable” in this case is defined as “those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance.” (Id.)
Solar energy systems in California must meet any applicable health and safety standards and any “requirements imposed by State and local permitting authorities.” (Id.) If the system is being used for heating water in homes or for commercial uses it “shall be certified by an accredited listing agency as defined in the Plumbing and Mechanical Codes.” (Id.)
Homeowners have faced litigation for having provisions in their bylaws which restrict or create an obstacle to the installation of solar panels. A homeowner can "sue the association for damages and an injunction to compel the association to enforce the provisions of the declaration." (Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. 21 Cal.4th 249, 268 (1999).) But, "any unlawful object contained within a contract is void and unenforcable. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1599.)
California has only one of two locations in the world (San Francisco and Lardello, Italy) where a “high-temperature, dry steam resource is found that can be directly used to move turbines and generate electricity.”
For a thermal energy plant to be created any and all developers must obtain siting approval and licensing from the California Energy Commission (hereinafter “CEC”) if the generating capacity of the plant is 50 MW or more. (Megawatts) “The county [in which the plant will be located] must demonstrate a capability to expeditiously process applications and their policies must be consistent with CEC’s policies for the development of geothermal resources. (Cal. Public Resources Code § 25522.) The CEC will also conduct an environmental review to make sure the plant will meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The CEC also offers a Small Power Plant Exemption that will relieve the developers of the licensing process for any thermal plant between 50 and 100 MW but they are still responsible for any other state, local, or federal permits needed.
Any developer of a thermal plant that qualities as a “public utility” must receive a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity before construction of “a facility with a net generating capacity over 50 MW. A public utility includes an “electric corporation…where the service is performed for, or commodity is delivered to, the public or any portion thereof.” (Cal. Public Utilities Code § 216.) An electric corporation for purposes of the statute is defined as “every corporation or person owning, controlling, operating, or managing any electric plant for compensation within this state, except where electricity is generated on or distributed by the producer through private property solely for its own use or the use of its tenants and not for sale or transmission to others.” (Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 218.)
Permits are dependent on the power plant’s “location, size, type of customer the power plant sells energy to, and whether the power plant sells energy in ‘interstate commerce.’”
California generated about 7 percent of its electricity from the 251 hydroelectric facilities operating within the state. There are three types of hydroelectric facilities operating in California including “run-of-river, dam, and pumped storage facilities.” Any facilities producing less than 30 MW of power are referred to as small hydropower and are require by the state to be certified for the net mw hours to count according to “renewable energy portfolio” standards.
The larger facilities in California are operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources and most of the hydroelectric facilities are located in the “eastern mountain ranges” with a “total dependable capacity of 21,000 MW.
“California has a hybrid surface water law system, containing elements of both riparian and prior appropriation water rights. In times of shortages, riparian rights are superior to appropriative rights, and later appropriators are subordinate to prior appropriators. The SWRCB regulates the appropriation of surface water and subterranean streams (23 CCR § 655.), while CDFW protects stream and lakebeds pursuant to California Fish and Game Code [§] 1602. The SWRCB also regulates groundwater pursuant to the Sustainable Management Act of 2014.”
Moving Counsel will remain the attorney of record for Renewable Energy Projects Management, LLC until Moving Counsel files proof of service of the signed order upon Renewable Energy Projects Management, LLC. The order will become effective upon the filing of the proof of service upon Renewable Energy Projects Management, LLC. Thus, the court GRANTS the Motion. Moving Counsel is to give notice.
SOLAR EQUITY GROUP, LLC V. KIRKLAND
30-2019-01118995
Sep 07, 2021
Orange County, CA
“Renewable Energy, Renewable Energy 1, SCP, and Clean Energy are limited liability companies incorporated in Arizona which regularly conduct business in California.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) The largest of the projects promoted by the Kirkland Defendants was located in Imperial, California. (Complaint ¶ 39.)
SOLAR EQUITY GROUP, LLC V. KIRKLAND
30-2019-01118995
Jul 06, 2021
Orange County, CA
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Renewable Energy Projects Management I, LLC (Motion), filed on 4-19-21 under ROA No. 324, is GRANTED. The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Moving Counsel’s declaration indicates that the client, Renewable Energy Projects Management I, LLC, consents to the termination of representation. (Cabal Decl. filed on 4-19-21 under ROA No. 291.)
SOLAR EQUITY GROUP, LLC V. KIRKLAND
30-2019-01118995
Aug 31, 2021
Orange County, CA
Case Number: 20STLC10806 Hearing Date: August 2, 2023 Dept: 25 Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc. v. Charles Fonarow 20stlc10806 TENTATIVE RULING : The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiff Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.s Motion for Attorneys Fees to August 11, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.
SOLARMAX RENEWABLE ENERGY PROVIDER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHARLES FONAROW
20STLC10806
Aug 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure ?410.30 Matter on calendar for Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Line 5, DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S Notice Of Motion And Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure ?410.30. Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'
PV2 ENERGY, LLC ET AL VS. RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC. ET AL
CGC16553135
Apr 04, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Mar 18, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Mar 19, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Mar 20, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Mar 21, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Mar 24, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Mar 23, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status. Defendants were previously defaulted. Their subsequent motion to set aside the default was denied. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the litigation.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Mar 22, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainants Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, is DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendants request for sanctions is also DENIED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainants Responses to Request for Production, Set One, is DENIED.
20STLC10806
Jan 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The loans were undertaken for certain home improvement work purportedly under the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) and California HERO program, which exist for the purposes of facilitating energy and water efficiency upgrades to homeowners. Plaintiff represents use of the loan proceeds for a list of upgrades, which amounted to $168,022 in charges from the identified contractor defendants.
LAWRENCE PERLE VS RENEW FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20CHCV00573
Jul 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 410.30 And 418.10. Hearing required. The court reaffirms the previous tentative ruling: Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay is denied.
PV2 ENERGY, LLC ET AL VS. RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC. ET AL
CGC16553135
Mar 23, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Motion To Partially Seal Records DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S Motion To Partially Seal Records IS CONTINUED TO MARCH 20 2017 AT 9:30AM IN DEPT 302, PER THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
PV2 ENERGY, LLC ET AL VS. RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC. ET AL
CGC16553135
Mar 17, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC'S Motion To Dismiss Or In The Alternative Stay The Action Pursuant To California Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 410.30 And 418.10. Defendant Renewable Energy Trust Capital, Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay is denied.
PV2 ENERGY, LLC ET AL VS. RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC. ET AL
CGC16553135
Mar 20, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Billingsley to stop a payment of earned commissions scheduled to be wired to plaintiff California Renewable Energy Program, LLC (“CRE”). Mr. Billingsley himself notes in his declaration that he was “made aware” that CRE was making complaints about its commissions, and “was also told” of customer contract cancellations purportedly originating from CRE. Mr.
S-CV-0044487
Jan 04, 2022
Placer County, CA
Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC, et al Defendant Joseph Kiwak’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, is continued to November 30, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 40 to be heard with defendants Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC and Sunfinity Renewable Energy, LLC’s motion for summary adjudication.
S-CV-0044487
Oct 26, 2021
Placer County, CA
BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a homeowner who applied for and obtained funding from Defendant to finance home improvements she made under the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE). PACE is a state-issued program enabling cities and counties to provide homeowners and businesses with financing to pay for energy efficiency, water efficiency, and renewable energy products and their installation. (FAC, ¶ 19.)
BLANCA MOHD VS LUIS MARTIN MEZA MARENTES, ET AL.
19CHCV00455
Dec 07, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Citizens for Responsible Solar; California Unions for Reliable Energy; George Ellis; and James Hennegan, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief on January 8, 2021, against Respondents/Defendants, County of Riverside (County) and Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside (Board) and Real Parties in Interest/Defendants, Renewable Resources Group; Renewable Resources Group, LLC; and Renewable Resources Group Holding Company, Inc. (RRG.)
CITIIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE SOLAR VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVBL2100014
Nov 07, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Citizens for Responsible Solar; California Unions for Reliable Energy; George Ellis; and James Hennegan, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief on January 8, 2021, against Respondents/Defendants, County of Riverside (County) and Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside (Board) and Real Parties in Interest/Defendants, Renewable Resources Group; Renewable Resources Group, LLC; and Renewable Resources Group Holding Company, Inc. (RRG.)
CITIIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE SOLAR VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVBL2100014
Nov 08, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, Citizens for Responsible Solar; California Unions for Reliable Energy; George Ellis; and James Hennegan, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief on January 8, 2021, against Respondents/Defendants, County of Riverside (County) and Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside (Board) and Real Parties in Interest/Defendants, Renewable Resources Group; Renewable Resources Group, LLC; and Renewable Resources Group Holding Company, Inc. (RRG.)
CITIIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE SOLAR VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVBL2100014
Nov 06, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Motion to Compel Clean Energy Storage Inc.’s Further Reponses to Request for SALTON SEA ESTATES III Production of Documents and CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY Production of Documents, Set One and STORAGE INC.
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Sep 12, 2023
Riverside County, CA
first capitol consulting, inc., Plaintiff, vs. renewable entergy center llc, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC 713009 Hearing Date: June 14, 2019 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT OR BYTTON’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT Background Plaintiff First Capitol Consulting, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 5, 2018, against Defendants Renewable Energy Center LLC (“Renewable”) and Ori Bytton (“Bytton”).
FIRST CAPITOL CONSULTING INC VS RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER LLC
BC713009
Jun 14, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC and Sunfinity Renewable Energy, LLC’s Motion for Summary Adjudication Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted. Sunfinity Solar-CA, LLC and Sunfinity Renewable Energy, LLC’s motion for summary adjudication is granted.
S-CV-0044487
Dec 21, 2021
Placer County, CA
Next, Plaintiff argues that if, on the other hand, the subject of Proposition 39 is the creation of clean energy jobs, then the Proposition is invalid based on the tax break provided to cable companies under the initiative. Plaintiff alleges the tax break reduced funding for the clean energy fund and is not otherwise connected to the clean energy fund or the jobs that the fund was designed to support. (Complaint, ¶ 55.)
ONE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY
21STCV21844
Nov 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Federal Clean Air Act (“Clean Air Act”) requires the implementation of solar power as expediently as practicable. Id. The SCAQMD is therefore required to use solar power as the best technology reasonable. Compl. at p.3. SCAQMD’s CEQA document and Plan do not evaluate a total solar conversion plan. Compl. at p.3. The Plan instead uses non-renewable natural gas resources, which is against state policy. Id.
HARVEY MARK EDER VS SCAQMD ET AL
BC656235
Mar 19, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Defaults: Defendants Hanford Renewable Energy, LLC (“HRE”), Madera Renewable Energy, LLC (“MRE”), Philip Verwey Dairy, Inc. (“PVD”), and Philip Verwey, individually, move to set aside their defaults. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Jan 27, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Defaults: Defendants Hanford Renewable Energy, LLC (“HRE”), Madera Renewable Energy, LLC (“MRE”), Philip Verwey Dairy, Inc. (“PVD”), and Philip Verwey, individually, move to set aside their defaults. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Jan 26, 2023
Shasta County, CA
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0199564 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Defaults: Defendants Hanford Renewable Energy, LLC (“HRE”), Madera Renewable Energy, LLC (“MRE”), Philip Verwey Dairy, Inc. (“PVD”), and Philip Verwey, individually, move to set aside their defaults. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
MAAS ENERGY WORKS, INC. VS. HANFORD RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL.
22CV-0199564
Jan 25, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Plaintiff and defendant EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. entered into a written settlement agreement on October 11, 2017. The proposed settlement complies with the requirements of Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1800-1801 (1996). The proposed order should reflect 10 calendar days before the final approval hearing for the administrator to submit a declaration. CPT shall describe what efforts were taken on return envelopes.
GEILENFELDT VS EDF RENEWABLE ENERGY INC [E-FILED]
37-2016-00001369-CU-OE-CTL
Nov 14, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Plaintiffs assert that West Hills breached the express warranty (Id., ¶ 28) and “did not perform its obligations under [the] Agreement in breach thereof—namely, by installing a renewable energy power system that failed to provide the promised energy savings” (Id., ¶¶ 32 and 39).
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Jun 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
S-CV-0041243 Sunrise Energy Solutions v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Motions to be Relieved as Counsel Counsel Arturo Santana, Jr.’s motions to be relieved as counsel for defendants CSUN Solar, Inc., China Sunergy (Hong Kong) Co., LTD, China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., LTD (PRC), China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech, Inc., China Sunergy Co. LTD. (BVI), China Sunergy Co., LTD. (Cayman), Sunergy California, LLC are granted, effective upon the filing of proofs of service of the signed order on defendants.
SUNRISE ENERGY SOLUTIONS V. CHINA SUNERGY (US) CLEAN TECH
S-CV-0041243
Jun 21, 2022
Placer County, CA
Plaintiffs claims in this action arise out of his participation in a Clean Energy Program (CEP) Loans program (also referred to as PACE programs).
ANDREW GALLAGHER VS YGRENE ENERGY FUND CALIFORNIA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV25510
Oct 03, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants Clean Power Management, LLC dba Clean Power Construction (CPM), Valta Energy, LLC, Valta Capital, LLC, Valta Capital Safe Harbor, LLC, Valta Solar, LLC, Valta, Inc., and Great Midwest Insurance Company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, labor and materials furnished, account stated, quantum meruit, and foreclosure of mechanics lien.
PERMACITY EMPOWER VS CLEAN POWER MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
22STCV13039
Jul 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Strike Portions of First SALTON SEA ESTATES III Amended Complaint by CLEAN CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY ENERGY STORAGE INC., TED STORAGE INC. THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Denied. For factual and procedural background, see Tentative Ruling No. 1 above. Legal authorities and analysis: “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike [a pleading] or any part thereof[.]”
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Aug 05, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Motion to Strike Portions of First SALTON SEA ESTATES III Amended Complaint by CLEAN CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY ENERGY STORAGE INC., TED STORAGE INC. THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Denied. For factual and procedural background, see Tentative Ruling No. 1 above. Legal authorities and analysis: “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike [a pleading] or any part thereof[.]”
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Aug 07, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Motion to Strike Portions of First SALTON SEA ESTATES III Amended Complaint by CLEAN CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY ENERGY STORAGE INC., TED STORAGE INC. THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Denied. For factual and procedural background, see Tentative Ruling No. 1 above. Legal authorities and analysis: “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike [a pleading] or any part thereof[.]”
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Aug 06, 2023
Riverside County, CA
MOVING PARTIES: Defendant Canopy Energy OPPOSITION: None This employment action was filed on March 14, 2017 by plaintiff Saeedeh Payrovy against defendants National Renewable Energy Center, A-1 Solar Power Inc., and Canopy Energy.
SAEEDEH PAYROVY VS NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER ET AL
BC654050
Feb 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
SALTON SEA ESTATES III Motion To Deposit By Stakeholder by CVSW2206896 LLC vs CLEAN ENERGY WESTERN SURETY COMPANY. STORAGE INC. Tentative Ruling: The unopposed motion is granted. The proposed order will be signed at the hearing.
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Aug 02, 2023
Riverside County, CA
21CV02057 BOYD v CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE First, as to whether the rates 3CE charges customers constitutes an unlawful tax, in Schmid v. Sonoma Clean Power (N.D.Cal. Nov. 14, 2014, No.
MICHAEL BOYD VS CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY
21CV02057
May 21, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.
CORR VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC
MCC2000878
Jun 19, 2022
Riverside County, CA
MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.
CORR VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC
MCC2000878
Jun 20, 2022
Riverside County, CA
MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.
CORR VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC
MCC2000878
Jun 18, 2022
Riverside County, CA
MOTION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS CORR VS CLEAN AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS MCC2000878 SPECIFIED IN THE REQUESTS FOR ENERGY STORAGE INC ADMISSIONS BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY WILLIAM CORR Tentative Ruling: GRANT the unopposed motion. GRANT 960.00 in sanctions, payable within 30 days.
CORR VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC
MCC2000878
Jun 16, 2022
Riverside County, CA
DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT SET FOR HEARING ON MONDAY, JULY 10, 2017, LINE 3 DEFENDANT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC.'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT SUSTAINED as to the seventh cause of action without leave to amend and OVERRULED as to all other causes of action.
PV2 ENERGY, LLC ET AL VS. RENEWABLE ENERGY TRUST CAPITAL, INC. ET AL
CGC16553135
Jul 10, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
No explanation having been provided for the non-appearance of defendants Genedics, LLC and Genedics Clean Energy, LLC on 8/19/15, the OSC re sanctions as to these defendants remains on calendar.
ANDY SREDEN VS. GENE SCOTT FEIN
56-2015-00463114-CU-BC-VTA
Sep 23, 2015
Ventura County, CA
PACE financing provided local agencies with the authority to use special taxes pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act to finance the installation of energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements that are affixed to residential, commercial, industrial, or other property. ( Id .) The Mello-Roos Act allows a city, county, or public agency to adopt a resolution allowing special taxes to be levied within a certain area known as a Community Facilities District (“CFD”). (Govt.
REHABBERS FINANCIAL, INC. VS BRIMO, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV44873
Jan 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
The potential jurors should have a greater interest in the impact to the local community as the LEAPS project is a renewable energy source in California. California has a greater interest in the outcome of this litigation given the need for renewable energy sources.
THE HYDRO COMPANY INC VS DAYTONA POWER CORP
37-2020-00012591-CU-MC-CTL
Sep 17, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff and defendant EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. entered into a written settlement agreement on October 11, 2017. Plaintiff and class counsel were able to obtain a recovery for the class, the average recovery for whom is approximately $10,408.12. The proposed settlement complies with the requirements of Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 1800-1801 (1996).
GEILENFELDT VS EDF RENEWABLE ENERGY INC [E-FILED]
37-2016-00001369-CU-OE-CTL
Mar 08, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
CLEAN ENERY FUELS CORP., CLEAN ENERGY COMPRESSION CORP. AND IMW INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication brought by defendants Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (“CE Fuels”), Clean Energy Compression Corp. (“CE Compression”), and IMW Industries, Inc. is granted.
KEVIN WOLF VS. CLEAN ENERGY FULES CORP., ET AL.
17-CIV-00944
Jan 12, 2018
San Mateo County, CA
SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Mar 31, 2023
Riverside County, CA
SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Apr 02, 2023
Riverside County, CA
SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Apr 03, 2023
Riverside County, CA
SALTON SEA ESTATES III MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CVSW2206896 LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY COMPLAINT BY CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC. STORAGE INC., TED THOMAS Tentative Ruling: Granted with 20 days leave to amend as to punitive damages and granted as to attorney fees claims without leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: See Tentative Ruling No. 1 above.
SALTON SEA ESTATES III LLC VS CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.
CVSW2206896
Apr 01, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The Motion (ROA # 674) of Defendant and Cross-Complainant VM ENERGY, LLC ("Defendant" or "VM Energy") for summary adjudication of Cross-Defendant and Cross-Complainant JOHNSON & WOOD INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., now known as JAYHUSKERS, INC.)("Johnson & Wood") claims-reporting duties with respect to the underlying claim by Dallas Clean Energy McCommas Bluff, LLC ("DCEMB") against VM Energy (the "DCEMB Claim"), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY [E-FILE]
37-2015-00028446-CU-IC-CTL
Mar 13, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
The Demurrer brought by defendant Ygrene Energy Fund, LLC is SUSTAINED in its entirety with leave to amend. Plaintiff Leila Martinez shall have 30 days leave to amend. Background and Procedural History Defendant Ygrene Energy Fund California, LLC (Defendant, Ygrene, or Lender) administrates a financing program known as Property Assessed Clean Energy or "PACE."
MARTINEZ VS YGRENE ENERGY FUND
37-2019-00044011-CU-MC-NC
Jan 23, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Cross-Defendants Golden State Finance Authority and Ygrene Energy Fund also demur on the same ground. Cross-claimants oppose both demurrers. The FAXC argues that they are victims of a scheme in which construction contractors solicit work to be funded by California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (commonly, "PACE") program. The PACE program provides public financing for qualifying environmental retrofits of residential property.
EDWARD BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS WARREN
RG19012386
Jan 20, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Background In or around October 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ygrene Energy Fund Californiaa State of California Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Administratorprovided Defendants/Cross-Defendants MEK Acquisitions, LLC (MEK) and its Managing Member Kenneth Berry (Berry) (collectively, the MEK Defendants) approximately $83,647.50 (PACE Loan) for energy efficiency improvements to the real property commonly referred to as 1943 Hillcrest Drive, Los Angeles, California 90016 (Subject Property).
KRISTA MARIE LI, ET AL. VS MEK ACQUISITIONS, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV18376
Jun 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Explanation: The plaintiffs’ solar power system installation was funded through a Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) program that allows financing for home improvement projects to be repaid by a special property tax assessment. Plaintiffs filed this action against The Solar Group, Inc. and Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc.
JOSE AVILA VS. YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC.
19CECG02943
May 10, 2022
Fresno County, CA
Matter on calendar for Wednesday, November 22, 2023, Line 10, DEFENDANT TRUE RENEWABLE ENERGY INCORPORATED's Motion To Recall And Quash Writ Of Execution And To Return Property Levied Upon. Defendant's "Motion To Recall And Quash Writ Of Execution And To Return Property Levied Upon" is granted save that plaintiff can retain $816.15. All other funds must be returned to defendant. Judge Quinn is unavailable to hear this motion.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. VS. TRUE RENEWABLE ENERGY INCORPORATED A CALIPORNIA ET AL
CGC23604445
Nov 22, 2023
San Francisco County, CA
(See California Clean Energy Committee, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 187.) Parties are DIRECTED TO APPEAR for a hearing on the petition.
CV-2022-0277
May 05, 2023
Yolo County, CA
Alon USA Energy Inc. owned the Refinery from 2006 to 2017. World Energy has owned the Refinery since 2018. (AR 3956.) AltAir is a subsidiary of World Energy. (AR 7823.) The Original Renewable Fuels Project In 2013, the City approved the Original Renewable Fuels Project. (AR 3935, 3967-3968.)
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, ET AL. VS CITY OF PARAMOUNT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCP01875
Nov 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
When a special tax lien has been recorded, the property owner is granted access to PACE financing to pay for eligible energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements for her property. This financing is repaid over time to the government entity through special taxes imposed on the property under SB 555. (Gov. Code § 53340(e).) Here, the government entity was CVAG, a joint powers authority under California Government Code section 6500 et seq., and a duly constituted public entity and agency. (UF 1.)
KLINGE VS YGRENE ENERGY FUND INC
PSC1905335
Jul 01, 2021
Riverside County, CA
10/1/2020 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding CLEAN ENERGY OF AMERICA GROUP, INC. v. SOUTHLAND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. (BC568285) Counsel for Plaintiff/judgment creditor: Larry Rothman MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT (filed 9/8/2020) Judgment Creditor’s request for judicial notice is granted. The motion is denied without prejudice to judgment creditor’s refiling motion with additional evidence and for proper notice.
CLEAN ENERGY OF AMERICA GROUP INC VS SOUTHLAND ELECTRICAL CO
BC568285
Oct 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Motion (ROA # 473) of Defendant and Cross-Complainant VM ENERGY, LLC ("VM Energy") for an order compelling Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ("Endurance") to produce a complete copy of its claim file from the underlying dispute between Dallas Clean Energy McCommas Bluff, LLC and VM Energy, without redaction, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(a) and Evidence Code sections 771 and 912 on the grounds that Endurance has failed and refused to produce
ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY [E-FILE]
37-2015-00028446-CU-IC-CTL
Sep 28, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Plaintiff began working with Defendant to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Plaintiffs work.
MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.
19PSCV01160
Mar 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The schedules also purport to include "Kansas oil royalties," "JRW Investment Funds," and "100,000 units of Clean Energy Fluid Systems, LLC." Most of those assets are further identified in the body of the trust agreement itself for specific distribution. Settlor died on January 18, 2017, without perfecting title to the aforementioned scheduled assets in the name of the trust. Petitioner successor trustee seeks a determination that the assets are held in the revocable trust.
IN RE HELEN J SCOBY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, DATED 1/14/2016
56-2017-00497895-PR-TR-OXN
Aug 16, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Probate
Trust
CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Dates is unopposed and is granted, the Court finding good cause for the requested continuance. The Court vacates the trial date of March 25, 2024 and the trial readiness conference set for March 21, 2024. This matter is set for a Case Management Conference on April 3, 2024 at 10:30 a.m. for resetting of trial dates. Counsel for the Plaintiff shall submit a form of order within two weeks.
['VOLLRATH, MICHAEL DAVID V. MID VALLEY TITLE AND ESCROW', 'HECTOR, CHERI ET AL V. CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC ET AL']
23CV00189
Mar 06, 2024
Butte County, CA
However, the court respectfully rejects this argument as well, and petitioners’ reliance on California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 (“Clean Energy”) is misplaced. In Clean Energy, the local agency had delegated the authority to comply with CEQA’s environmental review to its planning commission. (Id. at pp. 1337-1338.) The delegation, however, was improper because the planning commission did not have the authority to approve the project at issue.
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE
CVRI2000531
Aug 06, 2022
Riverside County, CA
However, the court respectfully rejects this argument as well, and petitioners’ reliance on California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 (“Clean Energy”) is misplaced. In Clean Energy, the local agency had delegated the authority to comply with CEQA’s environmental review to its planning commission. (Id. at pp. 1337-1338.) The delegation, however, was improper because the planning commission did not have the authority to approve the project at issue.
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE
CVRI2000531
Aug 08, 2022
Riverside County, CA
However, the court respectfully rejects this argument as well, and petitioners’ reliance on California Clean Energy Committee v. City of San Jose (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1325 (“Clean Energy”) is misplaced. In Clean Energy, the local agency had delegated the authority to comply with CEQA’s environmental review to its planning commission. (Id. at pp. 1337-1338.) The delegation, however, was improper because the planning commission did not have the authority to approve the project at issue.
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS VS CITY OF MENIFEE
CVRI2000531
Aug 07, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Case Number: 20STLC10806 Hearing Date: August 11, 2023 Dept: 25 Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc. v. Charles Fonarow 20STLC10806 ANALYSIS: I. Background On December 31, 2020, Plaintiff Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider, Inc.
SOLARMAX RENEWABLE ENERGY PROVIDER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHARLES FONAROW
20STLC10806
Aug 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied her burden under Code of Civil Procedure §1048(a) to show that the two actions involve a common question of law or fact. The Motion is granted, the matters are consolidated for all purposes. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 23CV01166 is designated the lead case.
['HECTOR, CHERI V. CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC ET AL', 'BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE V. FULTZ, AARON']
23CV01166
Jul 05, 2023
Butte County, CA
Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Khodabakhsh began working with Vechik to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Khodabakhsh. Subsequently, Khodabakhsh alleges Vechik began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Khodabakhshs work.
MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.
19PSCV01160
Oct 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Khodabakhsh began working with Vechik to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Khodabakhsh. Subsequently, Khodabakhsh alleges Vechik began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Khodabakhshs work.
MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.
19PSCV01160
Oct 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Plaintiff began working with Defendant to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Plaintiffs work.
MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.
19PSCV01160
May 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s FAC alleged therein: Plaintiff is an engineer, inventor and innovator who specializes in clean energy generating machinery. Plaintiff is the owner of certain patents and intellectual property that converts hydrogen into clean energy (“Hydrogen Technology”) including, but not limited to, United States Patent No. US 2010/0122914 A1 and PCT No. WO/21010/083344.
MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.
19PSCV01160
Nov 05, 2020
Gloria White-Brown
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
When a special tax lien has been recorded, the property owner is granted access to PACE financing to pay for eligible energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements for her property, and the financing is repaid over time to the government entity through special taxes imposed on the property under SB 555. (Gov. Code § 53340(e).)
KLINGE VS YGRENE ENERGY FUND INC
PSC1905335
Jun 01, 2023
Riverside County, CA
(“WHCI”) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby WHCI agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for plaintiff’s payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. The complaint herein was filed 2/16/17.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Jul 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court is inclined to grant the unopposed motions as well as the request for monetary sanctions against Defendant True Renewable Energy Incorporated and Defendant's counsel, Mike Chappars, in the amount of $699.11. However, the moving papers do not specify a workable time frame for service of code-compliant responses without objections sought by the moving party. The request that the responses to be provided "without delay" is unworkable. For the 9:00 a.m.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. VS. TRUE RENEWABLE ENERGY INCORPORATED A CALIPORNIA ET AL
CGC23604445
Feb 29, 2024
San Francisco County, CA
The Program “is intended primarily for retrofit activities to replace outdated inefficient equipment and to install new equipment that reduces energy consumption, produces renewable energy, or increases water conservation.” (Id. at p. 6.) The Program is also available to purchasers of new homes and businesses who wish to add improvements after taking title to the property. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA VS EMPOWERSBC PROGRAM
1369945
Oct 26, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
However, Plaintiff alleges that he "was the primary person at Fidelity and Chicago who was competing with Stewart for business in the renewable energy market" and that his "competition needed to be restricted and restrained for the conspiracy and agreement to be successful." (FAC, ¶ 144.) Further, Plaintiff alleges he was recruited by Chicago to compete with Stewart. (FAC, ¶ 13.)
AHN VS CHICAGO TITLE A DIVISION OF FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL
37-2019-00014641-CU-WT-CTL
Jan 30, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
CR claims the name “sounds like it is equivalent to Newhall’s Zero Net Energy where the project generates on-site, via renewable sources, as much electricity as it consumes.” (CR Brief 6:30-31.) CR also argues the GHG emission reductions are “mostly illusory or unsubstantiated” and have no relationship to the electric sector.
CLIMATE RESOLVE VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCP01917
Sep 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh is an engineer and inventor in the clean energy technology field. Defendant Terry L. Vechik is a marketer of inventions. In 2008, Plaintiff began working with Defendant to help monetize clean energy technology developed by Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges Defendant began falsely claiming to be an equal partner in Plaintiffs work.
MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.
19PSCV01160
Jan 10, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
DFT - Reliable Energy Management, Inc., George R Garcia (1) Demurrer to Complaint (2) Motion to Strike Complaint DFT - Pw Stephens Environmental, Inc. (3) Demurrer to Complaint (4) Motion to Strike Complaint (1)DEMURRER (Defendant Reliable Energy Management, Inc.) (2)DEMURRER (Defendant PW Stephens Environmental, Inc.) Defendant Reliable Energy Management, Inc.’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.
AVEDIAN VS. RELIABLE ENERGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
30-2018-01015783-CU-BC-CJC
Apr 25, 2019
Orange County, CA
She further states that the “[p]remise is to process raw renewable feedstocks, not purchased pretreated feedstocks like those received at the NuStar rail facility.
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT VS. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
N22-1080
Feb 29, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
Background Plaintiff Mohammed Khodabakhsh (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is an engineer, inventor and innovator who specializes in clean energy generating machinery. Plaintiff is the owner of certain patents and intellectual property that converts hydrogen into clean energy (“Hydrogen Technology”) including, but not limited to, United States Patent No. US 2010/0122914 A1 and PCT No. WO/21010/083344.
MOHAMMED KHODABAKHSH VS TERRY L VECHICK, ET AL.
19PSCV01160
Oct 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally, renewable diesel was becoming a popular alternative to NOx mitigants in early 2021. Customers considered and did purchase renewable diesel after [Defendants] exit from the market, instead of relying on traditional NOx mitigating additives (BC-EC1c or Vesta). [Citation omitted.] (MSJ, p. 25:918.) This is sufficient for Defendant to meet its initial burden on this argument.
CALIFORNIA FUELING, LLC VS BEST ENERGY SOLUTIONS AND TECHNOLOGY CORP.,, ET AL.
21STCV30368
Apr 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(WHCI) entered into a Renewable Energy Power System Contract, whereby West Hills agreed to install and warrant a solar power system in exchange for payment of $2,481,088.21. The installation was completed in May 2012. Plaintiffs allege that, nearly three years following completion, a large number of components suddenly failed, leading to a complete failure of the system by April 2015. On July 24, 2017, WHCI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against GreenVolts, Inc.
MCKINLEY HOME FOUNDATION VS WEST HILLS CONSTRUCTION INC
KC069072
Nov 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff state that they lost their home due to the actions of defendants, who fraudulently induced them to accept Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing to repair their home. A brief summary of PACE financing is necessary. PACE financing "allows property owners to finance the cost of energy or other eligible improvements on a property and pay for those improvements by entering into a voluntary agreement to place a special assessment on the property."
SHIVE VS YGRENE ENERGY FUND INC
RG20065290
May 04, 2021
Alameda County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.