*1 No. 7615. In Bank. Mar. 1965.] [Sac. Petitioner, PEOPLE, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT THE COUNTY, Respondent; DYKE OF SACRAMENTO Party in COMPANY, Real Interest. WATER E. Tuttle and Phelps Richard J. Thomason for Petitioner. appearance Respondent. No Lally Martin Thomas & Martin for W. Real Party in Interest. TRAYNOR, J. The Public C. Utilities Commission,suing People name of the State (Pub. California Code, § 2101), seeks a writ of Util. respondent superior to restrain proceeding court from with an action Company, real party
wherein in interest herein, seeks a declaration and duties of the respect with to funds collected from its cus pursuant stay to a order of tomers the commission. an in ordered termination In 1960 the Dyke. Pending granted previously terim increase rate stayed the effective date review this up a to set reserve order, but directed of the termination pursu deposit collected the amounts its books account ant July 25, 1961, after On stay a bank as trustee. *2 (Dyke Water order the termination this court affirmed Cal.Rptr. 310, Utilities
Public rates into effect ordered the lower 326]), the commission days to formulate Dyke within 10 immediately directed and plan to refund to its customers of a and advise the commission higher lower rates collected the and between the difference stay in effect. was while the commission’s issued an order to show commission 1962 the In November and not be why Dyke officers directors should and its cause violating final for various contempt held in directing Dyke up a including to set reserve those commission account, plan and formulate a deposit, a trust to to establish pursuant charges to refunding collected the excess for the stay. contempt pending, the proceedings were commis While the investigation proposed of a sale an sion commenced City operative property the of Anaheim. part of of its (Dyke Co., August Water Cal. 6, 1963 a decision filed on found that in 315, 322), the commission the P.U.C. approval proposed of sale be con that the terest Dyke’s making provision for refunds its cus ditioned on stay pursuant collected of the amounts tomers proceedings. commission also determined that rate placed purpose, in escrow for this but with $266,342 should be right pursue Dyke’s contention prejudice to before out its were due. the commission that no refunds Dyke deposited $266,342 decision in a Pursuant this trust Long Farmers and Merchants Bank of Beach account with the providing this instructions amount and executed escrow commission should was to be disbursed as the direct and changed not be the instructions should without escrow commission. the consent of the 9, 1963, declaratory filed its action December for On respondent superior alleges complaint in court. Its relief part defendant claims that he is entitled to of Silva the assignee Dyke’s customers, of of some that a refunds as part will of the refunds never claimed substantial cus- Attorney and that defendant tomers, General claims that part the refunds the of California. of State denies General, Attorney of and it the claims prays both Silva for a of declaration and duties of the under orders of commission. July 10, 1964, the commissionfiled its On decision and order finding Dyke contempt proceedings and its in officersand contempt guilty for six of directors violations including making plan order to formulate a contempt petition review While a order was refunds. in this commenced
proceeding prohibition. 19, 1964, for a writ On November contempt petition (Dyke we denied the to review order Commission, 21828), Co.v. Public No. but S.F. stayed pending timely of that order enforcement has been filing disposition petition for a certiorari Supreme the United States Court. provides: Section 1759 of Public “No Utilities Code except State,
court of this Court to the extent specified article, shall re- review, this correct, verse, or annul decision the commis- suspend thereof, operation sion or the execution or enjoin, restrain, interfere with the *3 performance duties, except of its official that writ of mandamus shall lie from the to Court the commis- proper in all sion cases.” Dyke The commission contends seeks to have superior court review the commission’s and respect making Dyke’s with to refunds to customers and annul Dyke those decisions to the extent a seeks declaration that it retain Accordingly, is the unclaimed refunds. deprives the commission concludes that section 1759 the su perior court of a pro and therefore writ of hibition should issue. Dyke asking superior contends that it is not
review, annul or execution decision only the commission and that it seeks a determination of two questions of law that have arisen under the commission’s disputes parties. between third Those alleged questions are to whether claims for be refunds are as- signable payable and whether unclaimed refunds are to the state. Dyke complied
Had with the commission’s order to formu- making plan late a for refunds to its customers and secured approval thereof, appropriate trial adjudicate disputes be- have courts would arising plan. (Coast parties under the third tween Asbury Co., 337, Truck 218 Cal. P.2d Line [23 Truck v. Oroville-Wyandotte Dist., 207 Cal. 513]; Henderson v. Irr. Laundry Com., Independent Railroad 487]; 215, 219 P. [277 827].) By giving proper Cal.App.2d 816, 826 P.2d [161 plan, the courts in such actions approved to an refund effect derogation acting but in aid of the commis- be not would jurisdiction. sion’s complied however, Dyke, has not the commission’s making refunds, plan a and in its order to formulate declaratory action advance determination of relief it seeks presented be in connec- that should issues any proposed plan. plan no Since refund has been tion with presented questions it, not ruled on the the commission has provisions assignability what the escheat considered plan Moreover, refund be. not should argued questions proceeding. in this Ac- briefed or those premature at cordingly, it be for us consider them in the exer- time to determine whether this regulate powers relationship a of its broad cise Code, 728, 729, (Pub. 701) customers Util. its §§ authority not are to determine whether or refund claims has Code, assignable (cf. 734) and to unclaimed Pub. Util. whom § paid. Ry. Market (Cf. should St. refunds be v. Railroad Co. 363, Com., 28 Cal.2d 366-367 P.2d [171 controlling facts are that matter of re the whole how made still and undecided before funds are be is obligated by a is final order of the making plan refunds. commission to Under precludes superior circumstances section 1759 these very adjudicating Dyke’s at behest issues that will from continuing necessarily presented to the commission proceedings. (Miller jurisdiction in the of its refund exercise 190, 164, 9 Cal.2d P.2d 112 A.L.R. v. Railroad [70 Superior Court, Northwestern R.R. Pac. ; see also Tel. & Tel. Co. v. 571] Pacific Court, Cal.Rptr. Superior 428-430 *4 Com., ; Pac. v. Public Utilities 41 Cal. P.2d Southern 233] 354, Superior Court, P.2d Loustalot v. 2d 905, 673].) P.2d 911-913 [186 peremptory prayed. as issue Let Peek, J., J., J., Burke, J., Schauer, J.,* Peters, Tobriner, concurred. my opinion, respondent
McCOMB, court J. I dissent. jurisdiction to determine the involved in the com- has plaint issues declaratory relief. provides: of the Public Code “No Section 1759 State, except Supreme the Court to extent court of this the jurisdiction specified review, re- article, in this shall any commis- verse, correct, or annul order or decision the suspend operation thereof, execution or sion or to the enjoin, restrain, the or to or interfere with performance duties, except that man- of its official the writ of Supreme lie from to the commission damus shall Court ’’ proper all cases. required respecting If the action a determination directing validity of the commission’sorders refunds, respondent party the real to make interest jurisdiction proceed. court would therefore lack by however, pleadings, raised are whether issues Silva, assignee, defendant deposits is entitled to receive refund as assigned to him and whether the state is deposits. receive validity unclaimed refund The issue directing orders and decisions that the refunds be made has not been raised. pleadings respondent As stand, simply upon pass
called on the merits of defendant Silva’s and claims and state's to determine what and duties are imposed upon respective parties applicable and decisions of the commission. Accordingly, respondent would not be “review, reverse, correct, or annul order or decision of the commission.” (Cf. Hen- Oroville-Wyandotte derson Dist., Irr. 207 Cal. 487]; Independent P. Laundry Com., Railroad Cal.App.2d 816, P.2d [5b] [161 In Miller v. Railroad [1] [70 221], 112 A.L.R. we said: .“. . after the commission has assumed over a purpose for the administering applicable the law activities utility, commission has exclusive over the regulation utility. control of said ...” *Retired Associate sitting Justice of the assign- Court under ment Chairman of the Judicial Council. *5 520 thereby however, that the commission say, This is not persons third the claims of jurisdiction to determine obtains against though such to a utility, even claims relate such jurisdiction. has assumed which the commission matter over Cal.2d 217-218 (Hempy Public Utilities [14 & Cal.Rptr. 436, 363 P.2d Tel. California Com., 51 Utilities Cal.2d Public the Public contrary, under section of On the any dam jurisdiction loss, to recover Code,* over actions any persons a result injury by third as of age, or suffered by perform utility a failure it to public or unlawful act any com by by or decision of the required law or order acts given specifically is to the courts.
mission any person to a refund under the Accordingly, hereinabove referred party right, if the real in interest failed would appropriate on his claim in payment, to file an action make trial court. provides Although Public of the Utilities Code section 1759 except speci- Court to the extent that no fied, jurisdiction delay suspend or the execution shall have commission, the any of the operation or of order or decision clearly judgments refers to orders or entered opera- delaying execution or purpose suspending or delays suspensions encompass or tion thereof and does not jurisdiction take. action which court has incidental to respondent present ease, court has In the by pleadings, and the fact raised determine the issues may inci- of the commission in execution some im- issues is dentally determination of those result material. purpose present action is to assure apparent of the only will be made by refunds ordered that the purpose be such a would persons entitled thereto. Since commission, action harmony in the official duties of the not by respondent thereof would court in furtherance taken “Any part: provides, Code the Public Utilities *Section act, matter, done, any does, permits to be or which causes any act, thing prohibited unlawful, or or to do or declared which omits done, Constitution, any matter, thing required to law or be either commission, State, or shall be liable of this or decision of the thereby loss, damages, persons corporations or affected for all injury thereby resulting If finds that therefrom. caused may, damages, wilful, the award it in addition to the actual act omission was loss, damage, exemplary damages. An action to recover for such injury may brought jurisdiction by any competent or corporation be court of person. ...” 1‘ restrain, or interfere with the commission enjoin, ’’ performance of its official duties. places reliance on reeent case The commission Pacific Cal.Rptr. Court, Superior Tel. Co. v. Tel. & urging respondent no has 233], 386 P.2d subject matter of the action. over the trial court would have been ease, however, being validity commission, the thereof an order review (cid:127) held that the scheme specifically put and this court in issue thereby Legislature of review established validity hand, present case, on the other In the altered. *6 not involved. of a commission order is discharge alternative writ of I prohibir deny petition for a
heretofore issued tion. In Bank. Mar. F. No. 21901. 1965.]
[S. JACKSON, THE Petitioner, SUPERIOR CONSTANCE THE AND COUNTY OF SAN CITY COURT OF Party PEOPLE, THE Real FRANCISCO, Respondent; in Interest.