Standard for Ruling on a Motion to Dismiss

As noted earlier (see footnote 8 and accompanying text), Defendant requests that the Commission dismiss the complaint. In effect, the request is a Motion to Dismiss.

A Motion to Dismiss requires the Commission to determine whether the party bringing the motion prevails based solely on undisputed facts and matters of law. The Commission treats such motions as a court would treat motions for summary judgment in civil practice.¹⁰ A motion for summary adjudication is appropriate where the evidence presented indicates there are no triable issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¹¹ The interpretation of a statute or regulation is generally seen to be a pure legal issue.¹²

While there is no Commission rule expressly for summary judgment motions, the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) does have Rule¹³ 11.2, which governs motions to dismiss. This procedure is analogous in several respects to a motion for summary judgment in civil practice.¹⁴ The Commission has explained that the purpose of both types of motions is to permit determination before hearing whether there are any triable issues as to any material fact.¹⁵ The Commission looks to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437(c) for the standards on which to decide a motion for summary judgment. Section 437(c) provides:

The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers . . . and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, if contradicted by other inferences or evidence, which raise a triable issue as to any material fact."

C.C.P. §§ 437c(f)(1) and (2) provide for summary adjudication by an analogous procedure:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty....

A motion for summary adjudication shall proceed ... in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment.

A further purpose of such a motion is that it promotes and protects the administration of justice and expedites litigation by the elimination of needless trials.¹⁶ As such, where appropriate, the Commission regularly grants motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication.¹⁷ Initially, the moving party bears the burden of establishing evidentiary facts sufficient to prove or disprove the elements of a particular claim, and then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show a material issue of fact or an affirmative defense.¹⁸ As the Commission stated in D.06-08-006:

Under the summary judgment procedure, the moving party has the burden of showing that there are no disputed facts by means of "affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken." The opposition to the motion must state which facts are still in dispute. The motion shall be granted if all the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the parties' filings disclose the existence of a disputed issue of material fact, the motion must be denied.¹⁹

In Application (A.) 99-04-010, we reviewed our standards for dismissing complaints and applications:

On a motion to dismiss a complaint, the legal standard against which the sufficiency of the complaint is measured is whether, taking the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true, the defendant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.²⁰

In evaluating the sufficiency of a complainant's allegations, we are guided by the standards set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 1702 which provides that the complainant must (a) allege that a regulated utility has engaged in an act or failed to perform an act; and (b) in violation of any law or commission order or rule:

Complaint may be made by the commission of its own motion or by any corporation or person, chamber of commerce, board of trade, labor organization, or any civic, commercial, mercantile, traffic, agricultural, or manufacturing association or organization, or anybody politic or municipal corporation, by written petition or complaint, setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the commission.

The Commission will dismiss a complaint that fails to meet this two-pronged standard.²¹ In addition, Commission Rule 4.2(a) requires that complaints be drafted with specificity so that the defendant and the Commission know precisely the nature of the wrong that defendant has allegedly committed, the injury, and the relief requested:

The specific act complained of shall be set forth in ordinary and concise language. The complaint shall be so drawn as to completely advise the defendant and the Commission of the facts constituting the grounds of the complaint, the injury complained of, and the exact relief which is desired.

With these standards in mind, we now examine the parties' responses to the scoping memo in order to determine if the Complainants have raised a legal question or any issue of material fact within the Commission's jurisdiction. If not, then the Defendant is entitled to a judgment, dismissing the complaint, as a matter of law.

¹⁰ Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commission on Motion to Dismiss and Preliminary Matters, at 3, in Raw Bandwidth Communications, Inc. v. SBC California, Inc. and SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc., Case 03-05-023 (September 11, 2003), citing to Westcom Long Distance, Inc. v. Pacific Bell et al., Decision (D.) 94-04-082, 54 CPUC2d 244, 249.

¹¹ Code of Civil Procedure, § 437c; Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 10:26-27.

¹² See Manriquez v. Gourley, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1227, 1234-35 (2003), quoting from Culligan Water Conditioning v. State Bd. of Equalization, 17 Cal.3d 86, 93 (1976).

¹³ All references to Rules are to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which are available on the Commission's website.

¹⁴ Westcom Long Distance v. Pacific Bell, D.94-04-082, 54 CPUC2d 244, [249] (1994).

¹⁵ Id.

¹⁶ Westcom Long Distance, supra, 54 CPUC2d at 249.

¹⁷ See D.07-07-040 (granting Chevron judgment against Equilon "as a matter of law"); D.07-01-004 (granting Cox Telecom judgment against Global NAPs of California); D.02-04-051 (granting summary adjudication of a claim by County Sanitation District against Southern California Edison Company).

¹⁸ C.C.P. §§ 437c(c), (f), (p).

¹⁹ Westcom Long Distance, supra, 54 CPUC2d at 249, quoted in D.06-08-006 Qwest Communications v. Pacific Bell.

²⁰ E.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Pacific Bell, D.95-05-020, 59 Cal.P.U.C.2d 665, 1995 Cal.P.U.C. LEXIS 458, at *29-*30, citing Burke v. Yellow Cab Co. (1973) 76 Cal.P.U.C. 166.

²¹ See Monkarsh v. Southern California Gas Company, D.09-11-017, at 3 (November 24, 2009); Pacific Continental Textiles, Inc. vs. Southern California Edison Company, D.06-06-011, at 4 (June 15, 2006); Watkins v. MCI-Metro Access Transmission Services, D.05-03-007, at 4 (March 17, 2005); Rodriquez v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, D.04-03-010, at 3-4 (March 16, 2004); AC Farms Sheerwood. v. Southern California Edison Company, D.02-11-003 (November 7, 2002); and Crain v. Southern California Gas Company, D.00-07-045 (July 20, 2000).