Opinion ID: 2049885
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Appellants next argue that the circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over forfeiture actions commenced under sec. 196.625, Stats., since forfeiture actions are civil actions. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the public service commission is the preferred forum. Sec. 288.01, Stats. 1975, provides, ... Where a forfeiture imposed by statute shall be incurred it may be recovered in a civil action unless the act or omission is punishable by fine and imprisonment or by fine or imprisonment. The word forfeiture, as used in this chapter, includes any penalty, in money or goods. (Emphasis supplied.) And, more specifically, sec. 195.07(3), Stats. 1975, states that any forfeiture provided in chapter 196 may be recovered in a civil action. Clearly, sec. 196.625 imposes a forfeiture, and civil actions are governed by the rules in ch. 801, et seq., Stats. (formerly ch. 260 et seq. ), which set forth the procedures to be used in circuit court. Civil action does not mean a hearing before the public service commission. Furthermore, sec. 196.76, Stats. 1975, states in part: ... all penalties and forfeitures accruing under said chapters [chs. 196 and 197] shall be cumulative and a suit for any recovery of one shall not be a bar to the recovery of any other penalty. (Emphasis supplied.) Obviously, the legislature contemplated that any forfeitures imposed by sec. 196.625 are to be recovered by suing in court and not by requesting a hearing before the public service commission.  Respondent cites sec. 196.02(1), Stats., in support of its contention that the public service commission has primary jurisdiction in this case and that the trial court should yield to it. That section provides: (1) The commission is vested with power and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate every public utility in this state, and to do all things necessary and convenient in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction. [8] This court has stated: The Public Service Commission may exercise only such power `as is expressly or by inference conferred upon it' by statute. Eau Claire v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Co., 178 Wis. 207, 215, 189 N.W. 476 (1922). `The commission does not exercise the entire regulatory power of the state. It may exercise only such powers as the legislature has seen fit to confer upon it and those powers must be exercised in the manner prescribed.' Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. PSC, 232 Wis. 274, 326, 287 N.W. 122 (1939). Friends of Earth v. Public Service Commission, 78 Wis.2d 388, 400, 254 N.W.2d 299 (1977). Nowhere in chapter 196, Stats., has the legislature given the public service commission the express or implied power to impose a forfeiture for a violation of sec. 196.625. The legislature has expressly stated that such a forfeiture is to be recovered in a civil action. [9] In the present case appellants seek a forfeiture, alleging that respondent wrongfully disconnected their telephone service. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the case. [10] Furthermore, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction would not deprive the court in this case of subject matter jurisdiction, since the primary jurisdiction rule is not  concerned with subject matter jurisdiction. Beal v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Asso. of Madison, 90 Wis.2d 171, 197, 279 N.W.2d 693 (1979); Browne v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, 69 Wis.2d 169, 175, 230 N.W.2d 704 (1975); Wisconsin Collectors Asso. v. Thorp Finance Corp., 32 Wis.2d 36, 49, 145 N.W.2d 33 (1966).