Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/utility-billing-456
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 05:34:04
Document Index: 308239877

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 3', '§ 701', '§ 6', '§ 453', '§ 451', '§66022', '§ 66022', '§ 66022', '§ 66025', '§ 66013', '§ 798', '§ 54346', '§ 54357', '§ 779', '§ 532', '§ 453']

What laws govern utility billing?
“A municipal corporation may establish, purchase, and operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with light, water, power, heat, transportation, or means of communication. It may furnish those services outside its boundaries, except within another municipal corporation which furnishes the same service and does not consent.” (Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 9(a); see also Kennedy v. City of Ukiah (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 545.) Municipal corporations “also have the power to fix the rates to be charged for the sale of the water. [Citations.] The only requirement is that such rates be reasonable.” (Kennedy v. City of Ukiah (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 545, 552.)
Alternatively, “[p]ersons or corporations may establish and operate works for supplying those services upon conditions and under regulations that the city may prescribe under its organic law.” (Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 9(b).) “Private corporations and persons that own, operate, control, or manage a line, plant, or system for the transportation of people or property, the transmission of telephone and telegraph messages, or the production, generation, transmission, or furnishing of heat, light, water, power, storage, or wharfage directly or indirectly to or for the public, and common carriers, are public utilities subject to control by the Legislature. The Legislature may prescribe that additional classes of private corporations or other persons are public utilities.” (Cal. Const., Art. XII, § 3.)
The Public Utilities Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to supervise and regulate public utilities. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 701-853, 1001, 1002, 2101.) It “may fix rates, establish rules, examine records, issue subpenas, administer oaths, take testimony, punish for contempt, and prescribe a uniform system of accounts for all public utilities subject to its jurisdiction.” (Cal. Const., Art. XII, § 6; County of Inyo v. Public Utilities Com. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 154, 166-167.)
The Public Utilities Commission “must fix rates that will provide a reasonable return on the utility's investment, and in doing so it has wide discretion to make rate classifications that reflect a broad and varied range of economic considerations.” (Wood v. Public Utilities Commission (1971) 4 Cal.3d 288, 294-295.) In doing so, “no public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service facilities, or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 453.)
“All charges demanded or received by any public utility... for any product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or any service rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 451; see also Southern California Edison Co. v. Peevey (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 781, 792.)
“Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge, or modifying or amending an existing fee or service charge, adopted by a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance, resolution, or motion.” (Gov. Code, §66022(a).) “If an ordinance, resolution, or motion provides for an automatic adjustment in a fee or service charge, and the automatic adjustment results in an increase in the amount of a fee or service charge, any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the increase shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the increase.” (Gov. Code, § 66022(a).) The court has reasoned that the Legislature enacted the relatively short 120-day limitations period to give local agencies certainty with respect to the enforceability of their fee resolutions and ordinances and to avoid putting an agency in the position of reimbursing funds that “have long since been expended.” (San Marcos Water Dist. v. San Marcos Unified School District (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1083, 1086.)
Section 66022 of the Government Code is part of the Mitigation Fee Act, which places various limits on the fees and charges that local agencies (including utility districts) can impose on persons or property holders. (Gov. Code, § 66022; Gov. Code, § 66025.) The Mitigation Fee Act places limits on “fees for water connections or sewer connections, or... capacity charges.” (Gov. Code, § 66013(a).)
Charges as Taxes
Whether a charge constitutes a “tax” for purposes of the Constitution “is a question of law for the appellate courts to decide on independent review of the facts.” (Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874.) In determining whether a charge is a tax, courts “are not bound by what the parties may have called the liability” (Bank of America v. State Bd. of Equal. (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 780, 801), and are “not to be guided by labels” (Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board (1977) 19 Cal.3d 467, 475) or “bare legislative assertion” (Flynn v. San Francisco (1941) 18 Cal.2d 210, 215). Instead, their “task is to determine the[] true nature” of the charge (Beamer v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, at p. 475), based on “its incidents” and “the natural and legal effect of the language employed in” the enactment (Ainsworth v. Bryant (1949) 34 Cal. 2d 465, 473).
Nonpayment of Utility Bill
“Where the management provides both master-meter and submeter service of utilities to a homeowner, for each billing period the cost of the charges for the period shall be separately stated along with the opening and closing readings for his or her meter. The management shall post, in a conspicuous place, the specific current residential utility rate schedule as published by the serving utility or the Internet Web site address of the specific current residential utility rate schedule.” (Civ. Code, § 798.40(a).)
“If all or part of the bill is not paid, the local agency may discontinue any and all service for which the bill is rendered.” (Gov. Code, § 54346.) “Remedies for collecting and enforcing rates and charges... are cumulative and may be pursued alternately, or any thereof may be used consecutively when the legislative body so determines.” (Gov. Code, § 54357.) However, California law does not permit the termination of utility service to a customer without good cause (Schultz v. Town of Lakeport (1936) 5 Cal.2d 377, 381-382.) Specific due process requirements have been prescribed prior to termination of service by a public utility. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 779, 780.)
A public utility is prohibited from refunding “directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any device” the scheduled charges for its services.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 532.). In addition, a public utility “cannot by contract, conduct, estoppel, waiver, directly or indirectly increase or decrease the rate as published in the tariff." (Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., 187 Cal.App.2d 257, 264.) Scheduled rates must be inflexibly enforced in order to maintain equality for all customers and to prevent collusion which otherwise might be easily and effectively disguised. (R.E. Tharp, Inc. v. Miller Hay Co., 261 Cal.App.2d 81 [67 Cal. Rptr. 854]; People ex rel. Public Util. Com. v. Ryerson, 241 Cal.App.2d 115, 120-121 [50 Cal. Rptr. 246].) Therefore, as a general rule, utility customers cannot recover damages which are tantamount to a preferential rate reduction even though the utility may have intentionally misquoted the applicable rate. (Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, p. 265.)
Upon discovery of the error, the utility may initiate an action against the customer to recover the full legal charges for the service, as filed and published in rate schedules. (Gardner v. Basich Bros. Construction Co., 44 Cal.2d 191 [281 P.2d 521]; R.E. Tharp, Inc. v. Miller Hay Co., supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 81.) In granting recovery to the utility, the courts usually rely on the fact that the rates have been filed and published and have thereby become part of the contract between the utility and the customer. (Gardner v. Basich Bros. Construction Co., supra, p. 193; Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, 187 Cal. App. 2d 257, 265.) Under these circumstances the customer is charged with knowledge of the contents of the published rate schedules and, therefore, may not justifiably rely on misrepresentations regarding rates for utility service. (Transmix Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., supra, p. 265.)
“Whenever the commission orders rate refunds to be distributed, the commission shall require public utilities to pay refunds to all current utility customers, and, when practicable, to prior customers, on an equitable pro rata basis without regard as to whether or not the customer is classifiable as a residential or commercial tenant, landlord, homeowner, business, industrial, educational, governmental, nonprofit, agricultural, or any other type of entity.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 453.5.)
Where the section applies, “'refunds' which are ordered 'distributed' by the commission must be allocated according to the statutory formula; present customers (except for small residential users) must be compensated on the basis of their prior usage to which the refund corresponds, and, where practical, prior customers must also participate to the extent of the overcharges which they previously paid.” (Cal. Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 842.) The court reasoned that refunds of rebates are ordered by the commission “to be 'distributed' whenever it directs their final disposition, thereby dividing and apportioning them.” (Id. at 848.) The “general feasibility of reimbursing many [present and prior] customers in strict accordance with their actual overpayments is demonstrated by past refund plans.” (Id. at p. 848-849.)
Useful Rulings on Utility Billing
Daneshmand vs. City of San Juan Capistrano
1) Defendant City of San Juan Capistrano's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 2)Status ConferenceThe Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion of Defendant City of San Juan Capistrano (the “City”) for judgment on the pleadings. The motion is granted with respect to the first and second causes of action, with leave to amend on or before January 5, 2018 assuming Plaintiffs can represent t...
..ached a term of that contract. As acknowledged by Plaintiffs, they allege the City overcharged its customers by billing more than Tier 1 rates (Complaint ¶ 20.b), raising water rates in tiers 2, 3 and 4 without evidence to support those increases (Complaint ¶ 20.c), and chargi...
Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer to Class Complaint; Motion to Strike (1) Demurrer to Class Action Complaint, (2) Motion to Strike Portions of ComplaintRuling:(1) For the reasons set forth herein, the demurrer of defendant Montecito Water District to plaintiffs’ complaint is overruled.(2) As set forth herein, the motion to strike of defendant Montecito Water District is granted in part and denied i...
..the setting of water rates, defendant water district demurs and moves to strike portions of the complaint.In 1987, plaintiff KBDR Properties, Ltd. (“KBDR”) purchased a 19.78 acre...
Luth vs. County of San Diego [EFILE]
TENTATIVE RULING Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company's ("SDG&E") motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, is denied to the complaints of the Luth, Gonzalez, Emerson and Bastian plaintiffs. SDG&E asserts that there can be no inverse condemnation because it is a privately owned utility company, and it cannot unilaterally and automatically distribute inverse c...
..finds the reasoning set forth in Barham v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 744, 751, remains valid. SDG&E continues to fit within the definitions of Public Utility Code sections 216 (a) and 218(a). "Public utility" includes every ...electrical corporation, ...where the service is performed for, or the commodity is delivered to, the public or any portion thereof, and 218(a) "Electric...
City of Buenaventura vs UWCD
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing:Phase 2Phase 2 TrialRuling:As discussed in detail below, the court concludes:(1) UWCD groundwater extraction charges for water years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 are not a “capacity charge” as defined by Government Code section 66013 and therefore may not be adjudicated as validation action under Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq.;(2) UWCD groundwater extraction...
..one A. For the same reason, whether or not Government Code section 54999.7 or the common law of utility ratemaking applies, UWCD has shown compliance with applicable standards;(4) Water Code section 755...
Nature of Proceedings: Hearing re: Phase IPhase 1 Legal IssuesRulings: See below.Background:This is an action by petitioner and plaintiff City of San Buenaventura (the “City”) to declare unlawful a June 8, 2011, decision by respondent and defendant United Water Conservation District (“UWCD”) to set ground water extraction charges and to order the decision set aside. UWCD seeks a declaration that t...
..ater resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be e...
Diana Lejins, et al. v. City of Long Beach, et al., 18STCP02628 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: granted Petitioners Diana Lejins (“Lejins”) and Angela Kimball (“Kimball”) seek a writ of mandate directing Respondent City of Long Beach (“City”) to void Ordinance No. ORD-18-0022 and to cease the transfer of rate revenue and imposition of charges pursuant to that ordinance. The...
..ntains the Long Beach Water Department (“LBWD”), which is governed by a five-member Board of Commissioners but is not a legal entity separate from the City. LBWD provides drinking water and wastewater service to City residents and businesses, as well as drinking water services to residents and businesses in unincorporated areas of the City. LBWD adopts water and sewer fees by resolution, which are...
Recent Rulings on Utility Billing
James C. Chalfant (9)
Sacramento County, CA (22)
Santa Barbara County, CA (17)
HEIDER V. CITY OF SANTA ANA
“In particular, ‘the lodestar method vests the trial court with the discretion to decide which of the hours expended by the attorneys were ‘reasonably spent’ on the litigation’ . . . and to determine the hourly rates that should be used in the lodestar calculus.” Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 35. The Court reduces the requested hours by 42 hours of travel time from Sacramento to Orange County.
She alleges that she and other putative class members were not paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked; were not paid the correct rates for overtime hours because defendant failed to include bonuses, incentive pay, and other forms of remuneration in calculating their pay rates; did not receive required meal and rest breaks or receive required compensation for missed breaks; did not receive their final paychecks when due, and did not receive all wages owed in their final paychecks; did not receive
In their First Amended Petition (“Petition”), the petitioners allege that the City’s electric utility rates are taxes, as defined by section 1(e), because they are a charge that the City imposes on Petitioners and other utility customers for electric utility service and the charges exceed the reasonable cost of providing that service.
Utility Services “fees” and “charges” at issue, including the additional amounts charged to Petitioner to fund the “general tax” and transfer of revenue to the general fund pursuant Section 3.20.010, are invalid under article XIII D, section 6(b)(1), (2) and (5).
Although the EIR initially described the project as a 51-cubic-feet-per second increase in pumping water to supply the water used in the Owens Valley, other portions of the report analyzed a project of much greater scope, including higher rates of pumping and the installation of infrastructure needed to deliver water to Los Angeles. (Id. at p. 189–190, 139 Cal.Rptr. 396.)
Toyota-Lift offers for sale and lease to its clients a full selection of superior forklifts, aerial lift equipment, and utility vehicles.
FARAJOLLAH YADKARIM, TRUSTEE OF THE FARAJOLLAH YADKARIM AND SHAHIN YADKARIM REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JUNE 15, 2017, ET AL. VS NINETY SEVEN 14 HOLCOMB, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 405.4 says that a “[r]eal property claim means the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property or (b) the use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than an easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.”
FIGUEROA VS. FCA US, LLC
The amount of work required to answer the questions must be so great and the utility of the information sought so minimal, that it would defeat the ends of justice to require the answers. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12.)
RAO BOPPANA ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
No encroachments under a revocable permit are allowed near utility appurtenances (such as water meter boxes, gas shut-off valve boxes, street light and traffic signal conduit and pull boxes, and parking meters) where the width of the sidewalk is less than a standard seven feet. The R-Permit was unlawfully allowed and granted. The drawing and diagram submitted do not contain the minimally required information. The approval failed to consider the design, uses, and materials of the structures approved.
The City raised water rates by 7.2% effective October 1, 2018 solely to fund Measure M transfers. The Measure M tax is embedded in the water and sewer rates and is denominated a “service” or “usage” charge on utility bills. Benink Decl., Ex. F (Lejins utility bill). The California Supreme Court has held that “taxes, assessments, fees, and charges are subject to the constitutional strictures when they burden landowners as landowners.” Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v.
Travelers further argues that the use of unfiled rate information remains lawful unless the rates are first disapproved. AR 983. Travelers’ argument implies that if use of unfiled rates was per se unlawful, the Commissioner's authority to disapprove those rates would be superfluous. AR 983. According to that argument, disapproval must be a prerequisite to finding unified rates unlawful. AR 983. This position is unsupported by the statutory language and relevant case law. AR 983. g.
Plaintiffs allege Muni Water is the exclusive water utility for 27 approximately 10 percent of the population of San Jose. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs allege the City 28 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 1 has used and transferred Muni Water funds for purposes other than those for which the funds 2 were collected, in violation of Proposition 218.
It continued on to analyze the black carbon emission impact as no significant impact due to the high proportion of organic carbon released in residential wood burning, and the fact that the proposed project would not lead to increased rates of residential wood burning in the County.
SAN JOSE NEUROSPINE V. AETNA INC., ET AL.
(Utility Audit Co v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 950, 958; see also CACI, No. 371.) The only essential allegations of a common count are “(1) the statement of indebtedness in a certain sum, (2) the consideration, i.e., goods sold, work done, etc., and (3) nonpayment.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460) 1. Request.
Muni Water is the exclusive water utility for approximately 10 percent 27 of the population of San Jose. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs allege the City has used and transferred 28 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR DEMURRER 1 Muni Water funds for purposes other than those for which the funds were collected, in violation 2 of Proposition 218.
Muni Water is the 28 exclusive water utility for approximately 10 percent of the population of San Jose. (FAC, ¶ 7.)
DODD V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Defendant provided express warranties by which Defendant undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the vehicle, or to provide compensation if there was a failure of such performance. Unfortunately, the vehicle had multiple defects and after several attempts to repair the vehicle, Defendant was unable to repair it, and did not replace or repurchase it, prompting the instant action.
Plaintiff did not serve the subpoenas without substantial justification; however, the Court additionally notes that Defendants did not adequately reflect the services performed by counsel and counsel's rates of services in the declaration of attorney Timm; e.g., the Court is puzzled why the hourly rates are described as "approximately" and "at least." See par. 3 of attorney Timm's declaration.
HALL VINELAND, LLC ET AL. V. CITY OF ST. HELENA, ET AL.
Cambria Community Services Dist. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 49, stands for the proposition that “[a] will-serve letter by a public agency regarding the provision of utility service is not a contract.” (Support Memo. at 16:1-2.) That case articulated no such broad-brush rule.
JEFF WADE, ET AL. VS SOURTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
Plaintiffs allege that defendant is a privately owned public utility, enjoying a state-protected monopoly and operating like a governmental entity, and that it spreads risk though its rates charged to ratepayers, and exercises control over public improvements for the supplying of electricity, using the power of eminent domain to obtain rights of way. Plaintiffs allege that the taking of plaintiff’s property permanently deprived plaintiffs of the use and enjoyment of their property.
"A plaintiff [who has requested records] is considered the prevailing party if his [or her] lawsuit motivated defendants to provide the primary relief sought or activated them to modify their behavior [citation], or if the litigation substantially contributed to or was demonstrably influential in setting in motion ^ The Court accepts the Lodestar hourly rates set forth in the declaration of Karl Olson as reasonable.
“A plaintiff [who has requested records] is considered the prevailing party if his [or her] lawsuit motivated defendants to provide the primary relief sought or activated them to modify their behavior [citation], or if the litigation substantially contributed to or was demonstrably influential in setting in motion 1 The Court accepts the Lodestar hourly rates set forth in the declaration of Karl Olson as reasonable.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY VS CLAREMONT GRADUATE
By the terms of the 2006 Agreement, Consortium gave [CST] an easement providing additional permanent access for ingress, egress and utility access, as well as the use of a large surface parking area on property owned by [Cross-Complainant]. The 2006 Agreement also served to update and confirm the 1957 and 2001 Agreements.