V. Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ____________, and reply comments were filed on ______________.
1. When a party files a complaint before the CPUC, that party generally is permitted to withdraw the complaint if the motion to dismiss is filed prior to the commencement of trial.
2. California courts have held that once a trial on the merits of a complaint begins, the complainant may not unilaterally withdraw the complaint.
3. California courts have held that a judgment of the sufficiency of a complaint by sustaining a general demurrer, without leave to amend, constituted grounds to preclude a complainant's voluntary withdrawal of a complaint.
4. The ALJ's ruling on AT&T's motion to dismiss in this complaint was not analogous to an order sustaining a general demurrer since the ruling did not grant the motion to dismiss, but merely amended the scope of the complaint.
5. A trial has not yet begun in this complaint.
6. As a general rule, the Commission does not adjudicate miscellaneous contract disputes between public utility and a third aprty that does not involve customer service.
7. The complaint at issue here involves contract disputes, that directly relate to customer service and is therefore subject to CPUC jurisdiction.
1. Because the ALJ Ruling on AT&T's Motion to Dismiss was not the functional equivalent of an order sustaining a general demurrer, it did not provide a basis for judgment on the merits of the case.
2. The County retains the right to voluntarily have the complaint before us dismissed because a trial has not yet commenced.
3. Apart from the right of the County to have the case voluntarily dismissed, this Commission retains subject matter jurisdiction over the substance of the complaint.
4. The County's motion to dismiss should be granted, effective immediately, so that parties can pursue other avenues for obtaining resolution of their dispute.
5. The Commission retains the right to issue a separate order to show cause as to why the County should not be found in violation of Rule 1 and subject to possible sanctions.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the County of Orange is granted.
2. The funds on deposit in escrow relating to this complaint case shall be returned to the County.
3. The County remains subject to an Order to Show Cause as to why the County should not be found in violation of Rule 1 and subject to sanctions.
4. Case 00-06-020 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
