Complainant's request that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice is granted.10 No scoping memo has been issued in this matter and no evidentiary hearings have been held.

The Commission has expended considerable time and effort processing the Complaint. Much of this time and effort has been expended as a result of Complainant's inability or unwillingness to comply with the Commission's Rules.

As discussed above, the Complainant failed to appear at the August 19 PHC. Complainant's failure to appear at the August 19 PHC wasted Commission resources. Complainant asserts without merit that he did not receive notice of the August 19 PHC.

On August 9, 2011, parties were served notice of the August 19 PHC via United States (U.S.) Mail and e-mail, pursuant to Rules 1.9, 1.10, and 13.1(a) of the Commission's Rules. Complainant asserts that he did not receive notice of the August 19 PHC because the notice served via U.S. Mail was sent to Complainant's La Jolla address and not his Pennsylvania address. However, the Commission also served notice of the August 19 PHC via e-mail, pursuant to the Rules.

Rule 1.10(a) states:

By providing an electronic mail (e-mail) address for the official service list in a proceeding, a person consents to e-mail service of documents in the proceeding, and may use e-mail to serve documents on persons who have provided an e-mail address for the official service list in the proceeding.

Complainant provided the e-mail address arthurwolk@airlaw.com in Section I of the Complaint.11 The service list for this proceeding includes this e-mail address for Complainant. Pursuant to Rule 1.10(a), Complainant consented to e-mail service by providing an email address for the official service list in the proceeding.

Rule 1.10(c) states, in part:

E-mail service shall be made by sending the document, a link to the filed version of the document, or the Notice of Availability (see Rule 1.9(c)), as an attachment to an e-mail message to all e-mail addresses shown on the official service list on the date of service.

Commission records show that Complainant was served notice of the August 19 PHC via email on August 9, 2011.12 Attachment 1.

Rule 1.9(c) states:

Service of a document may be effected by personally delivering a copy of the document to the person or leaving it in a place where the person may reasonably be expected to obtain actual and timely receipt, mailing a copy of the document by first-class mail, or electronically mailing the document as provided in Rule 1.10. Service by first-class mail is complete when the document is deposited in the mail. Service by e-mail is complete when the e-mail message is transmitted, subject to Rule 1.10(e). The Administrative Law Judge may direct or any party may consent to service by other means not listed in this rule (e.g., facsimile transmission). Emphasis added.

Pursuant to Rule 1.9(c), Complainant was properly and timely served notice of the August 19 PHC when the August 9, 2011 email notice of the August 19 PHC was transmitted.

Despite the provisions of Rules 1.9 and 1.10 and documentation clearly demonstrating that Complainant was properly served notice of the August 19 PHC via email, Complainant continues to assert that he did not receive proper notice and that he is being unfairly criticized for what Complainant contends is the Commission's error.

As noted above, Complainant has been unwilling or unable to comply with the Rules in numerous instances. In addition, as summarized above, Complainant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint repeatedly denigrates the ALJ and the Commission.13

Some leniency may be warranted for failing to comply with the Commission's Rules when complainants are utility consumers that are inexperienced with administrative or legal proceedings or the Commission`s Rules. In this case, Complainant purports to be a licensed attorney with 44 years of law practice and litigation experience all over the country, including California.14 As such, Complainant should, at a minimum, be able to follow the Commission's Rules and to maintain the respect due to the Commission and its ALJs.15

Complainant has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with the ALJ assigned to this matter, and stated his intention to seek reassignment of the proceeding to another ALJ.16 Although Complainant alleges prejudice and bias on the part of the assigned ALJ, Complainant has not sought reassignment pursuant to Rule 9.4.17

Because we dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, Complainant is free to file with the Commission a complaint against SDG&E in connection with electric service at 1678 Marisima Way, La Jolla. However, if Complainant files a complaint against SDG&E in connection with electric service at 1678 Marisima Way, La Jolla, the Commissioner and ALJ assigned to that complaint should have the record of this proceeding before them. Therefore, any future complaint filed with the Commission by Complainant against SDG&E in connection with electric service at 1678 Marisima Way, La Jolla, must reference this Complaint and this decision.

10 In light of Complainant's disparaging statements about the Commission and its staff, including Complainant's belief that the Commission is unable to render a fair and impartial judgment in this matter, it is not clear why Complainant wishes to preserve his opportunity to bring the Complaint before the Commission again in the future.

11 Section I of the of the Commission's Formal Complaint Form states:

I/we would like to receive the answer and other filings of the defendant(s) and information and notices from the Commission by electronic mail (e-mail). My/our e-mail address(es) is/are:

12 The Commission's Process Office confirms that the August 9, 2011 e-mail notice of PHC sent to Complainant at arthurwolk@airlaw.com did not result in an undeliverable message (i.e., a "bounceback").

13 Rule 1.1 states: "Any person who signs a pleading or brief, enters an appearance, offers testimony at a hearing, or transacts business with the Commission, by such act represents that he or she is authorized to do so and agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges; and never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law."

14 Separate Statement of Complainant, dated September 8, 2011, at 1. TR22:25-27, 43:21-22.

15 A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. (American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.2.)

16 TR 43:18 - 44:9. See also, Motion to Withdraw Complaint, Exhibit D.

17 Rule 9.4 permits a party to any proceeding to file a motion for reassignment of that proceeding to another ALJ for cause, including bias or prejudice.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page