Opinion ID: 2625953
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the district court has jurisdiction over this cause of action

Text: ¶ 5 The defendants first assert the plaintiffs' claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Corporation Commission and not of the district court. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs' claims do not deal merely with the adjudication of private rights between individuals. They are an inherent challenge to the public-policy determinations over which the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction. [14] At the bottom of this cause, assert the defendants, is whether there existed at that time an industry-wide duty to disclose the ethanol content in motor fuel. They urge the plaintiffs seek legislation to be effected by litigation, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. The plaintiffs respond that because this dispute deals with private rights of litigants, not just public rights, the trial judge correctly determined that jurisdiction lies in the district court. [15] To rule otherwise would offend the access-to-court provision of the Oklahoma Constitution. [16] ¶ 6 That the Commission is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction is well established in Oklahoma jurisprudence. [17] It possesses only such authority as is expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon it by the constitution and statutes of Oklahoma. [18] If no Commission jurisdiction stands expressly conferred or necessarily implied, either by the constitution or by statute, its order would be void. The function of the Commission is to protect the rights of the body politic; private rights and obligations of private parties lie within the purview of the district court. [19] The Commission, although possessing many of the powers of a court of record, is without the authority to entertain a suit for damages. [20] ¶ 7 The Commission is without authority to hear and determine disputes between two or more private persons or entities in which the public interest is not involved. [21] The distinction between public and private rights is not always immediately transparent. Public rights, at a minimum, must arise between the government and others: the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined is a matter of private rights. [22] We have also held questions in an action concerning the relationship of private parties, their duties, rights and obligations, and the existence of liability for the breach of such duties to be matters particularly with the province of the district court. [23] ¶ 8 The plaintiffs' claims which stand presented here are of a private nature. They urge the defendants had both a contractual duty and a duty under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act to disclose the ethanol content of their fuel. These issuesthe duties and obligations of the parties and the liability that exists for the breach of such dutiesdeal with private rights between these private parties. That the plaintiffs' claim is a putative class action alters neither the parties' nor the action's classification. Moreover, the plaintiffs seek compensation for the breach of these asserted duties. The Commission has no authority to award damages. This dispute is hence beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. It properly rests in the district court.