NO. 07-08 -045 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C JAN UA RY

16, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E C AN O PE TROLE UM , I NC ., W .O. EN ER GY OF NEVADA, INC., W .O. OPE RAT ING COMPANY, LTD. AND W O ENERGY, INC., RELAT ORS

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Rel ators, Can o Pet ro leu m, Inc .; W .O. Energ y of Nev ada, Inc.; W .O. Operati ng Compan y , LTD .; and W .O. Energ y , I nc. , pet it ion th is court to g ra nt a w ri t of mandamus direct ing the honorabl e Paul Da vi s, v is it ing Ju dg e i n the 100 D is tr ic t C our t of C arson th Cou nty , Tex as, to enter an o rd er abat ing the proceed ing s a nd s tay ing the tr ial i n C ause No. 999 4 un til such time as the Pu blic U t il it ie s Co mm ission of Te x as (PUCT) ma kes a deter minat ion of the mat ters p endi ng before it

. W e deny the re li ef req uest ed. Back g ro und As a resul t of

w il dfires that occ ur re d in th e Tex as Panhandl e on or aboutM ar ch 12, 200 6, So uth w este rn Pub lic Se rv ice d/b /a Xcel Energy (SPS), real party i n inte rest, f iled suitThe c ase before t he C our t w as one of 11 l aw sui ts that arose o u t of the w il dfires 1 o f M arch 20 06. All cases were transferred to the 20 0 Distri ct Court of Travis C oun t y, th Tex as, ac ti ng as the mult idi str ic t l it ig ati on pre- tr ial co urt. 2 ag ain st re lat ors a lle gin g tha t t he fires that damag ed transpo rt ati on and dis tr ibu ti on eq uip ment ow ned bySPS w ere the resul t of the neg li g ence of rel ators. SPS fil ed a sec ond am end ed p etition thatalleged bot h a ne gli gence cau se of action and a breach of contract caus e of act ion ag ain st re lat ors on September 14, 2007. On Febr uar y 8, 2008, SPS filed a third amen ded pet ition. Relato rs filed their answers to the allegatio ns con taine d in SPS ’s thi rd ame n d e d pet it ion and, on M ar ch 7, 20 08, fil ed tradi ti onal and no- ev ide nce moti ons f o r su m mary

j udg ment as to SPS’ s c lai ms ag ain st them for neg li g ence and breach of cont ra ct. SP S fil ed i ts re spons e to the motion s for su mmary

j udg ment on Apr il 29, 2008. Rel ators t hen fil ed a moti on to abat e on June 4, 2008, w hic h contai ned copi es of a peti ti on for dec larator

y relief a n d c omplai nt fil ed w it h the PU CT on Ma y 30, 2008. SPS fil ed i ts re spons e to the plea in abatement on Jun e 11, 2008, and the t ri al cour t hel d a h ear ing on the a batementi ss ue on June 12, 2 008. On June 24, 2 008, the tri al cour t’ s orde r deny ing the first ple a i n abat ement w as filed . On September 11, 2008, the tr ial co urt ent ered i ts order remandi ng SPS ’s ac ti on ag ain st re lat ors b ack to the 1 0 0 Dis tr ic t C our t of C arson th Cou nty , Tex as, i n C ause No. 9994. O n October 21, 2008, re lat ors fil ed a sec ond moti on 1 to ab ate t he proceed ing s, w hic h w as ov er ru led by the tr ial co urt on Oct ober 28, 2008. Dur ing t he ti me per iod thatthe v ar iou s mot ion s a nd req uest s w ere pendi ng and be i ng ac te d up on bythe tr i al co ur t, re l at ors purs ue d rel i ef t hrou g h th e ae g i s o f t he P U C T. On M ay 30, 2008, re lat ors fil ed a peti ti on req uest ing dec larator y re lief and a cus tomer compl ain t, PU CT doc ketnumber 35737, w it h the PU CT. On or about June 17, 2 008, SPS3

filed a respon se to rela tors’ req uestfor decl arator y re li ef an d compl ain t. Subs eq uentl y , on Oct ober 22, 2008, re lat ors filed a noti ce of PUC T fili ng s i n the 100 D is tr ic t C our t of C arson th Cou nty , Tex as. I n thi s n oti ce, rela tors s et forth, throug h v ar iou s e x hib it s, the n umero us fili ngs with t h e PU CT, to i ncl ude rela tor W .O. Operati ng C ompany ’s i nter v enti on i nto a different ra te c ase pendi ng before the PU CT, PU CT doc ketnumber 35763, i ndi cat ed th at thes e matt ers w ere pendi ng before the P UC T, and a ss erted t hat P UC T ’s resol uti on of thes e matt ers w ere mater ial to SPS’ s s uit

. Af ter the trial court d e n ie d the secon d mo tion for aba tem ent , relators f iled this origi nal pe tition for ma nda mu s relief

. Fo r th e reaso ns set ou t belo w , w e de ny the request fo r re l i e f. Standa rd of Rev iew Ma ndamus is av ail abl e w hen a tr ial c o u rtcl ear ly abus es it s d is creti on and the norm al app ellate process does not provide an adequa te rem edy. See In re Prud ent ial Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S. W .3d 1 24, 1 35- 36 ( Tex . 200 4) ( or ig . proc eedi ng ). A failu re of a tr ial cour t t o proper ly

anal yz e or

appl y the law i s a n abus e of di sc re ti on. See I n re Kuntz , 124 S.W .3d 1 79, 1 81 ( Tex . 200 3) ( or ig . proceed ing ). I n a c ase suc h as the one before the Court, th ere i s n o a d e qu ate reme dy by app eal if perm itting a trial to g o forw ard “w ould int erf e re wit h the i mport ant l eg is lat iv ely mandate d functi on and pur pose of the PU C[ T].” In re Sw. Bell T el. Co., 22 6 S.W .3d 400 , 403 (Tex. 2007 ) ( orig. proceed ing).4 Ana ly sis Re la to rs a re requ e st in g th is c o u rtto ord e r th e tri a l co u rtto ab a te f u rt h e r pr o ce e d in gs and stay the trial of

this case un til such time as the PUCT m akes a det ermin ation of certain all eg ed th re shol d i ss ues pendi ng before it

. It is the posi ti on of rela tors t hat t he PU CT has pr imar y j ur is dicti on ov er

thi s mat ter

. P ri m a ry j u ri s d ic t io n “a ll o c a t e [ s ] p o we r b e twe e n co urts and a ge n c ie s wh e n b o t h h a ve aut hority to make initial dete rmi n a t io n s i n a dispu te.” Sub aru of Am. v . Dav id McDav id Ni ss an, I nc. , 84 S.W .3d 212, 221 (Tex . 2002). Tri al cour ts are to defer t o the appropr iat e admin ist ra ti v e ag ency

w hen 1) the ag ency

i s s taffed w it h ex per

ts train ed i n handl ing compl ex probl ems w it hin the ag ency ’s pur v iew , and 2) g re at be nefit is d e rived from t he ag ency ’s uni fo r m i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f l a w s w i t h i n i t s p u r v i e w a n d t h e a g e n c y ’ s r u l e s a nd regulation s w hen courts an d juries might reach dif fering results u nde r s im ila r fa ct si tuati ons. I n re Sw

. Bel l Tel. Co. , 226 S.W .3d at 403; Subar u of A m., 84 S. W .3d a t 221

. I n a t t e m p t in g t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r th e a d m in is t ra t ive a ge n c y h a s p ri m a ry ju ri s d ic t io n , we are instruct ed to ascertain w het her the action und er conside ration is i nhe rently j udicial in nat ure. See Ama rill o Oil Co. v . Ene rg y -Agr i Prods., In c., 79 4 S.W .2d 20, 26 (Tex. 1990 ). If the act ion is inhe rently judicial, th e cou rt retains jurisdiction to det ermin e the controversy unl ess the leg is lat ure, by v ali d s tatut e, has ex press ly granted ex cl usi v e j ur is dicti on to the admini strati v e ag ency . Id. Relato rs asse rt th at th e PUCT has prima ry jurisdiction ba sed o n the fact th at SP S’s peti ti on refers to t he req uirement t hat rela tors mai ntai n the ir el ect ri cal di str ibu ti on s y ste m5

in acc ordance w it h the Nati onal Elect ri c SafetyC ode ( NE SC ). The req uirement t o foll ow the NESC is allegedly set forth in th e con tra c tf o r serv ices betw een the pa rties and is author iz ed by

a t ar iff prev iou sl y approv ed by the PU CT. F ina ll y , SP S’ s p eti ti on al leg es that not o n ly were rela tors n eg li g ent, but b y thei r act ion s t hey

al so breache d the co ntractfor serv ices betw een the pa rties. The q uest ion then becomes w hat about thi s a cti on req uires a det er minat ion by the a ge n c y’s e x perts, w ho a re trained in hand ling com plex problem s w ithin th e agency’s pur v iew

. The answ er , as far a s w e c an det er mine, i s nothi ng . SPS’ s p eti ti on at tempts to setforth a s ta n d a rd o f care req uired of any cu sto mer si mil ar ly

si tuate d to re lat ors. The deter mina ti o n o f

t h e standard of care i n a n eg li g ence act ion i s a q uest ion of law for t he cour t. Gol den Sp re ad C ounci l, Inc ., #562 of the BoyScouts of Am. v . Ak ins , 926 S.W .2d 287 , 289 -90 (Te x . 199 6). Likew ise, the othe r cause of action alleged ag ainst relators is a breach of contractcl aim. W hil e the fact ual determi nati on of w hat acti ons w ere taken i s for the factfinder , w hether those acti ons cons ti tute a breach of contracti s a q uest ion of law for th e c our

t. BAC M 2001- 1 San Fel ipe R d. Li mite d Par tnershi p v . Trafalg ar

H old ing s I , Ltd ., 21 8 S.W .3d 137 , 146 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 2 007 , pet . den ied). Th e ma tters th w hich relato rs cont end are ex clusiv ely or prima rily w ithin th e PUCT ’s auth orityare ma tters routin ely hea rd and decide d by tr ial courts an d mu st be con sidered in h e re n t ly judicial in nature. Amar il lo Oi l Co. , 794 S .W .2 d a t 2 6 . Fur ther , unl ik e i n In re Sw . Be ll Tel. C o., w here the aut hority to interp ret and e nforce the contract ual disp ute had bee n spe cif ically del eg ated to the a dmini strat iv e ag ency , s ee In re Sw . Be ll Tel. C o., 226 S. W .3d a t 403 ,Bas ed on our r uli ng , C ano’ s mot ion for t emporar y reli ef is deni ed. 2 6 in the p resen t case, w e can f ind no ex press grant of auth orityto the adm inistrative agency to i nter pret an d enforc e the co ntracti n q uest ion nor hav e w e been ci ted t o any . Fi nal ly , w e mustl ook at t he rel ief tha t SP S i s req uest ing , w hic h i s d amag es for neg li g ence and breach of contract

. The aw ard of damag es in neg li g ence and breach of cont ra ct act ion s a re routi nel y heard and deci ded by tr ial co urts and m u st be c onsi dered inh erentl y

j udi ci al in nature. Amar il lo Oi l Co. , 794 S.W .2d a t 26. F urther , w e c an find no ex p re s s g ra n t o f a u t h o r i t y t o t h e P U C T t o a w a rd d a ma g e s fo r c o mm o n l awca uses of act ion nor

hav e w e been ci ted t o any . See Dol enzv. Sw . Bell T el. Co., 730 S. W .2d 4 4, 45 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 D is t.] 1987, no w ri t) . Unde r thes e c ircums tanc es, w e c annot say th that the P UC T has pr imar y j ur is dicti on ov er

thes e matt ers. Therefore, w e c annot find th at t h e t ri a l c o u rtwa s b o u n d t o d e fe r t o t h e a d m in is t ra t ive a ge n c y. Con cl usi on W e find that the t ri al cour t did n o t cle ar ly

abus e i ts dis creti on w hen i t refused to a b a t e t h i s m a t t e r . T h e r e fo r e , w e d e n y t h e re q u e s t e d re l i e f. 2

Mackey K. Hancock Justice