2 Cal. App. 5th 1260
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael J. Aguirre filed a PRA-based petition/writ in San Francisco Superior Court seeking disclosure of CPUC records about the San Onofre shutdown and alleged backroom settlements.
- Aguirre alleged the CPUC refused to produce certain emails and writings responsive to PRA requests (Nos. 1386 and 1414).
- CPUC demurred, arguing (1) Public Utilities Code § 1759 bars superior court jurisdiction over actions against the CPUC and (2) Aguirre failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The superior court overruled the demurrer; CPUC filed an extraordinary writ to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal limited its review to jurisdictional issue and concluded § 1759 requires initial mandamus review in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, not superior court; it directed the superior court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PRA petition to compel the CPUC may be filed in superior court | Aguirre: Gov. Code § 6258/6259 permit PRA enforcement in superior court (any court of competent jurisdiction) | CPUC: Pub. Util. Code § 1759 deprives superior courts of jurisdiction to review or enjoin CPUC duties; mandamus against CPUC lies only in Supreme Court or Court of Appeal | Held: § 1759 bars superior court jurisdiction over PRA claims against the CPUC; relief must be sought in appellate courts under § 1759(b) |
| Whether § 6258’s “any court of competent jurisdiction” overrides § 1759 | Aguirre: PRA’s specific enforcement scheme and constitutional access provisions control | CPUC: § 6258 does not expand court competence to include superior court when § 1759 limits it | Held: Phrase can be harmonized with § 1759; it does not confer superior court jurisdiction over the CPUC |
| Whether requiring appellate-court origination impairs PRA enforcement or in-camera review | Aguirre: Appellate courts cannot perform in-camera review or would be blocked by "no new evidence" rule | CPUC: Documents will be part of the administrative record or reviewable; appellate review can resolve PRA disputes | Held: Appellate review is consistent with PRA enforcement and does not foreclose necessary document review |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies required | Aguirre: invoked § 6258; argued superior court appropriate | CPUC: also raised failure to exhaust as separate ground | Held: Court did not decide exhaustion because § 1759 jurisdictional bar was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (2002) (standard for demurrer review)
- Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (2002) (PRA provides special judicial procedures; agencies may not initiate PRA declaratory actions)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (Covalt), 13 Cal.4th 893 (1996) (test for when § 1759 bars superior-court actions against utilities)
- Hartwell Corp. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 256 (2002) (§ 1759 bars superior-court jurisdiction only to the extent it would interfere with CPUC duties)
- Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Comm., 25 Cal.3d 891 (1979) (description of CPUC’s constitutional and statutory authority)
- Disenhouse v. Peevey, 226 Cal.App.4th 1096 (2014) (superior court lacked jurisdiction under § 1759 over Bagley-Keene claims against CPUC)
- Independent Laundry v. Railroad Comm'n, 70 Cal.App.2d 816 (1945) (existence of a general declaratory statute does not enlarge superior-court jurisdiction over the commission)