III. Motions for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication

The Commission has not established a rule that explicitly governs summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues, so both District and Edison structured their respective motions to follow the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure (Code Civ. Proc.) § 437c(c), modified to reflect Commission practices. The Commission has looked to the requirements of that statute for guidance in resolving motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Westcom Long Distance, Inc. v. Pacific Bell et al., D.94-04-082, (1994) 54 CPUC2d 244, 249.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c) provides in relevant part:

"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."

While there is no Commission rule expressly for summary judgment motions, the Commission does have Rule 56, which governs motions to dismiss. Rule 56 "is analogous in several respects to a motion for summary judgment in civil practice." (Westcom Long Distance, supra.) The basis for a motion to dismiss under Rule 56 may include "the pleadings or any other matter occurring before the first day of the hearing." (Rule 56.) The purpose of such a motion, the Commission has explained, is to permit determination "before hearing whether there are any triable issues as to any material fact." (Id.)

Like a motion for summary judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c), a second purpose of a Rule 56 motion to dismiss is "that it promotes and protects the administration of justice and expedites litigation by the elimination of needless trials." (Westcom Long Distance, supra.) However, declarations and evidence offered in opposition to the motion must be liberally construed, while the moving party's evidence must be construed strictly, in determining the existence of a "triable issue" of fact. (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies, (1981) 30 C3d 358, 373.)

These legal standards provide the analytical framework for considering the cross motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication brought by District and Edison. In addition, we note that the parties have stipulated to submitting this matter to the ALJ on the pleadings and foregoing trial.