IV. Additional Guidance for Future § 625 Complaints

Because this is the first complaint filed pursuant to § 625, we provide additional observations and guidance which may also promote judicial economy and assist the Commission and interested persons in processing future § 625 cases as expeditiously as possible. Under § 625, a hearing must commence very quickly, within 45 days after the complaint's filing, unless respondent receives an extension of not more than 30 days. Section 625 does not state how many days the hearing should last, and does not preclude the presiding officer from commencing and then continuing the hearings in order to develop a complete record by which to resolve the complaint. Moreover, the timeline for resolving the complaint is extended if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies.

It is clear that the Legislature intended that cases filed pursuant to § 625 proceed as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the law and due process. To that end, a § 625 complaint should include a specific description of the property interest sought to be condemned. Given the timeframes for commencing the hearing established by statute, it is very important that the complaint contain this information in the first instance, because there is little time for amending the complaint, and the defendant should be apprised in the first instance precisely what property interest the utility seeks to condemn. Furthermore, a precise description of the property sought to be condemned is also necessary so that the Commission may evaluate whether the complaint is subject to the CEQA.

In describing the property sought to be condemned, a § 625 complaint, to the extent possible, should provide: a specific description of the location of the property, with a plat map showing the location; a legal description of the property, usually a metes and bounds description prepared by a licensed engineer or surveyor; and a title report or other similar information demonstrating that all persons having an interest in the property sought to be condemned have notice of the action. Additionally, the complaint should provide enough information in the complaint to satisfy the Commission that all parties having an interest in the property sought to be condemned have notice of this action.¹³

In response to an ALJ ruling requesting testimony on these issues, Cox filed a motion to compel discovery so that it could have access to the property sought to be condemned in order to conduct a survey and obtain other information to prepare testimony to answer the above points. We do not resolve the underlying discovery dispute here.¹⁴

However, before filing a § 625 complaint with this Commission, a complainant may be able to utilize Code of Civ. Proc. § 1245.010 et seq. to conduct necessary preacquisition activities on property sought to be condemned. This statutory scheme permits a person having eminent domain power to enter private property either with the owner's consent or pursuant to order of the Superior Court, in order to "make photographs, studies, surveys, examinations, tests, soundings, boring, samples, or appraisals or to engage in similar activities reasonably related to acquisition or use of the property..." California courts have construed this statutory scheme as permitting such entry prior to the filing of a condemnation action. (See County of San Luis Obispo v. Ranchita Cattle Co. (2^nd Dist., Div. 5, 1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 383, 389, interpreting the predecessor statute to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1245.010 et seq.)