This case comes back to us after we granted rehearing of Decision (D.) 99-07-008, which initially dismissed Matthews' complaint. Matthews filed the complaint on August 25, 1998, seeking relief from water rates instituted in 1997 by the defendants. The defendants own Plantation on the Lake, a mobilehome park where Matthews is a tenant. As this is the third complaint filed by Matthews to challenge the legality of the defendants' ratemaking methodology and the reasonableness of the water rates for the park, our decision is the culmination of a long and costly dispute on the subject. A full account of the prior procedural history is provided in D.99-07-008.
Following issuance of D.99-09-072, our order granting rehearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) held a series of prehearing conferences to establish a discovery schedule, ensure full and timely disclosure of relevant information by both sides, and set the matter for hearing.1 A ruling issued on November 5, 1999, required the defendants to produce for Matthews' inspection all documents (including, but not limited to, books, accounts, financial statements, records, reports, letters, and workpapers) that were relevant to the rates or explained the methodology used to establish them. The defendants complied with this ruling. A ruling issued December 17 required Matthews to serve her prepared testimony on the defendants, along with all exhibits, by January 18, 2000, and required the defendants to serve responsive testimony two weeks before the EH. Both parties served testimony in accordance with this schedule, and were ready to proceed at the EH. (EH Transcript (Tr.), p.1.)
The one-day hearing was conducted in Calimesa on February 15, 2000. Matthews, who had previously represented herself in this proceeding, was represented by counsel. At the close of Matthews' case Meadows made an oral motion to dismiss on the grounds that Matthews had not satisfied her burden of proof. The ALJ took the motion under submission. (See Tr., pp. 41-46.) The case was submitted on April 20, 2000, after the parties filed two rounds of briefs.
1 As a predicate to the ALJ initiating this prehearing procedure, the parties had advised the Water Division that they were unable to reach a settlement of the issues within 21 days after mailing of D.99-09-072, as required by Ordering Paragraph 2 of that decision.