3. Procedural Background
Jurupa filed its complaint against Empire on March 23, 2009, alleging that Empire was operating as a provider of water services, within Jurupa's service area, in violation of § 2701 of the Public Utilities Code. The proceeding was assigned to Commissioner John Bohn and Administrative Law Judge Gary Weatherford on April 21, 2009. Instructions to Empire to answer the complaint were filed on April 21, 2009. On May 26, 2009, Empire filed its verified answer that variously denied and admitted contentions of the complaint, asserted that the water services were exempt from the jurisdiction of the Commission, contended that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and set forth affirmative defenses to the complaint.
The parties filed a joint case management statement on June 22, 2009, and the prehearing conference was held on June 24, 2009, in Fontana, California. The Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling Adopting Schedule, filed on July 10, 2009, identified two issues for adjudication: first, whether present water deliveries by Empire come within the Commission's jurisdiction and, second, whether prospective water deliveries, after an intended restructuring of existing contracts, would come within the Commission's jurisdiction.
On July 30, 2009, Empire filed a motion to strike those portions of the complaint pertaining to future water service. On August 17, 2009 Jurupa filed its response to that motion and on August 27 Empire replied. By a ruling on September 8, 2009, ALJ Weatherford struck portions of Jurupa's complaint that contained speculative allegations about future events and conditions that were not ripe for consideration. The ruling removed the issue of prospective water deliveries from the proceeding except to the extent that during the course of the proceeding water deliveries might come to be made under a contemplated restructuring of existing contracts. In the ruling Empire was asked to provide information concerning whether any transfer of assets of the Canal Company had occurred under §§ 851-854 and, if so, whether any Commission approvals or denials had resulted. Empire responded to that request on October 8, 2009, stating that the Canal Company was not a Commission-regulated public utility as of the time that Empire purchased the assets of the Canal Company and therefore that §§ 851-854 were inapplicable.
Opening legal briefs were filed by Jurupa and Empire on October 23, 2009, and reply briefs were filed on November 6, 2009. Jurupa and Empire each served prepared testimony on December 4, 2009 and prepared reply testimony on December 23, 2009. Empire's reply testimony focused on the restructuring of existing water delivery contracts and included copies of two assignments, dated December 4, 2009, purporting to place 350 IWC, the mutual water company in which Empire is a majority shareholder, in the role of fulfilling certain preexisting water delivery obligations of the IHWCC.
In accordance with a December 30, 2009 ruling by ALJ Weatherford, which among other things highlighted certain issues, such as the applicability of §§ 851-854, that needed to be covered in oral argument, Jurupa and Empire filed a joint stipulation concerning the admissibility and authenticity of documentary evidence, with exhibit lists attached, on January 5, 2010.
The evidentiary hearing was held in San Francisco on January 6, 2010, with the record held open for the preparation and possible admission into evidence of an Empire exhibit showing the specific assets of 350 IWC that Empire acquired on December 21, 2007. Such an exhibit,11 after being reviewed and commented on by Jurupa, followed by reply comments by Empire, was admitted by ALJ Weatherford on April 3, 2010. An order was issued on March 12, 2010, extending the statutory deadline for resolution of the adjudication to December 16, 2010. The proceeding was submitted on May 28, 2010.
11 EWC Exhibit No. 109, the Agreement dated January 15, 2010 and characterized by the parties as the Final Closing Memorandum.
