Procedural Background
On October 27, 1999, District filed the above-captioned complaint against Edison seeking reparations from the Commission for alleged billing overcharges and tariff violations. On December 9, 1999, Edison filed an answer to the complaint admitting that the issues are whether Edison overcharged the District for electric services and violated its tariffs. In addition, Edison raised numerous affirmative defenses it alleges support the dismissal of the complaint and the denial of the relief sought by the District.
On February 3, 2000, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling pursuant to Rule 49,2 requiring the parties to meet and confer and file a Joint Case Management Statement (JCMS). On March 3, 2000, the District and Edison filed a JCMS3 setting forth the principal factual and legal issues in the case and a stipulation of facts. At a prehearing conference (PHC) on April 24, 2000, the parties agreed that the proceeding involved primarily legal issues, rather than factual disputes, and stipulated to a briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment. All of the briefs were filed and served before the scheduled motion hearing date of July 25, 2000. At the hearing, oral arguments were presented by counsel, and the matter was deemed submitted.
2 Unless otherwise noted, all references to Rules are to the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, which are codified at Chapter 1, Division 1 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations. 3 The JCMS and its stipulation of facts is used by both District and Edison as evidentiary support for their respective positions on the cross motions for summary judgment/summary adjudication.
