5. Assignment of Proceeding

Michel Peter Florio is the assigned Commissioner and Richard Smith is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. Complainant provided the email address arthurwolk@airlaw.com in Section I of the Complaint. The service list for this proceeding includes the email address arthurwolk@airlaw.com for Complainant.

2. On August 9, 2011, parties were served notice of a PHC to be held in this matter on August 19, 2011. Notice of the August 19, 2011 PHC was provided via U.S. Mail and e-mail, pursuant to Rules 1.9, 1.10, and 13.1(a) of the Commission's Rules.

3. Notice of the August 9, 2011 PHC that was sent via e-mail to Complainant at arthurwolk@airlaw.com did not result in an undeliverable message (i.e., a "bounceback").

4. Complainant failed to appear at the August 19 PHC.

5. A second PHC in this matter was held telephonically on October 6, 2011.

6. The October 6 PHC was adjourned at Complainant's request.

7. On October 11, 2011, Complainant requested that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

8. No scoping memo has been issued in this matter and no evidentiary hearings have been held.

Conclusions of Law

1. Complainant consented to e-mail service of documents by providing an e-mail address for the official service list in the proceeding, pursuant to Rule 1.10(a).

2. Complainant was properly and timely served notice of the August 19 PHC when the August 9, 2011 e-mail notice of the August 19 PHC was transmitted, pursuant to Rule 1.9(c).

3. Complainant's assertion that he did not receive notice of the August 19 PHC lacks merit.

4. Complainant's October 11, 2011 pleading entitled, "Withdrawal of Complaint" should be treated as a motion to dismiss Complaint without prejudice (Motion to Dismiss Complaint).

5. The Motion to Dismiss Complaint should be granted.

6. Because the Motion to Dismiss Complaint should be granted, the Motion to Compel is moot and should be denied.

7. Because the Complaint is dismissed 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, California.

8. If Complainant files a complaint against San Diego Gas & Electric Company in connection with electric service at 1678 Marisima Way, La Jolla, California. Complainant should be required to reference the Complaint and this decision.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Complainant's motion to dismiss complaint without prejudice is granted.

2. Complainant's motion to compel discovery is denied.

3. Any complaint filed in the future by Complainant with the Commission against San Diego Gas & Electric Company in connection with electric service at 1678 Marisima Way, La Jolla, must reference the Complaint and this decision.

4. The evidentiary hearings determination is changed to no hearings necessary.

5. Case 11-07-007 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated April 19, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

Attachment 1

<End of Attachment 1>

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page