6. Motion to Consolidate; Motions to Strike
Knollwood and the Western Manufactured Housing Community Association moved on October 20, 2003, to consolidate this complaint case with an ongoing investigation (OII 03-03-017 and OIR 03-03-018) dealing with submeter discounts and allocation of costs under line extension rules. The motion is opposed by complainants on grounds that the costs at issue here occurred in 1998 and 1999 and should not be subject to reallocation up or down based on prospective changes in the rules, if any, that emerge in the OII/OIR proceeding. We agree. The motion to consolidate is denied.
Complainants have filed objections to portions of the supplemental testimony of Knollwood's two witnesses. We interpret the filings to be motions to strike the testimony. The objections go primarily to the qualifications of the declarants in stating certain opinions. The declarants at hearing showed broad knowledge and experience in the areas upon which they commented. The objections will go to the weight of the declarations, but the motions to strike are denied.
Defendant has objected to the supplemental declaration of Knollwood witness Richard Riddell. We interpret the filing to be a motion to strike the testimony. The testimony goes primarily to the qualifications of the witness in stating certain opinions. The witness at hearing showed broad knowledge and experience in industry practice. The objection will go to the weight of the declaration, but the motion to strike is denied.
In a late filing, Defendant also cites the case of PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (9th Cir. 2004) 358 F.3d 1187, for the proposition that a party cannot accept one forum (arbitration) and, after an unfavorable decision, seek to proceed in a different forum. Defendant argues that the same principle of estoppel applies here, since plaintiffs first sought their remedy in Superior Court and, after an unfavorable decision, filed their complaint before this Commission. The cases are distinguishable. In PowerAgent, no entity had been given exclusive jurisdiction by the state legislature. As discussed above, the Commission does not dispute the authority of the Rent Review Commission or the Superior Court, but the Commission cannot waive its exclusive jurisdiction to decide rate matters involving gas and electricity costs in submetered mobilehome parks. (See Hillsboro Properties, supra, 108 Cal.App.4th 246, 257.)
