Court Opinion

ID: 9569394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:13:27.506754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:55:38.111392
License: Public Domain

McCOMB, J.
I dissent. In my opinion, respondent court has jurisdiction to determine the issues involved in the complaint for declaratory relief.
Section 1759 of the Public Utilities Code provides: “No court of this State, except the Supreme Court to the extent specified in this article, shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct, or annul any order or decision of the commission or to suspend or delay the execution or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties, except that the writ of mandamus shall lie from the Supreme Court to the commission in all proper cases. ’ ’
If the present action required a determination respecting the validity of the commission’s orders and decisions directing the real party in interest to make the refunds, respondent court would therefore lack jurisdiction to proceed.
The issues raised by the pleadings, however, are whether defendant Silva, as assignee, is entitled to receive the refund deposits assigned to him and whether the state is entitled to receive any unclaimed refund deposits. The issue of the validity of the commission’s orders and decisions directing that the refunds be made has not been raised.
As the pleadings stand, respondent court would simply be called upon to pass on the merits of defendant Silva’s and the state's claims and to determine what rights and duties are imposed upon the respective parties by the applicable orders and decisions of the commission. Accordingly, respondent court would not be required to “review, reverse, correct, or annul any order or decision of the commission.” (Cf. Henderson v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. Dist., 207 Cal. 215, 219 [277 P. 487]; Independent Laundry v. Railroad Com., 70 Cal.App.2d 816, 826 [5b] [161 P.2d 827].)
In Miller v. Railroad Com., 9 Cal.2d 190, 195 [1] [70 P.2d 164, 112 A.L.R. 221], we said: “. . . after the commission has assumed jurisdiction over a public utility for the purpose of administering the law applicable to the activities of the utility, the commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation and control of said utility. ...”
*520This is not to say, however, that the commission thereby obtains jurisdiction to determine the claims of third persons against such utility, even though such claims relate to a matter over which the commission has assumed jurisdiction. (Hempy v. Public Utilities Com., 56 Cal.2d 214, 217-218 [14 Cal.Rptr. 436, 363 P.2d 476]; California Water & Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 51 Cal.2d 478, 488 [334 P.2d 887].)
On the contrary, under section 2106 of the Public Utilities Code,* jurisdiction over actions to recover for any loss, damage, or injury suffered by third persons as a result of any unlawful act of a public utility or a failure by it to perform acts required by law or by any order or decision of the commission is specifically given to the courts.
Accordingly, any person entitled to a refund under the commission’s orders and decisions hereinabove referred to would have the right, if the real party in interest failed to make payment, to file an action on his claim in the appropriate trial court.
Although section 1759 of the Public Utilities Code provides that no court, except the Supreme Court to the extent specified, shall have jurisdiction to suspend or delay the execution or operation of any order or decision of the commission, the prohibition clearly refers to orders or judgments entered for the purpose of suspending or delaying the execution or operation thereof and does not encompass suspensions or delays incidental to action which the court has jurisdiction to take.
In the present ease, respondent court has jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by the pleadings, and the fact that some delay in execution of orders of the commission may incidentally result pending determination of those issues is immaterial.
The apparent purpose of the present action is to assure that the refunds ordered by the commission will be made only to persons entitled thereto. Since such a purpose would be in harmony with the official duties of the commission, action taken by respondent court in furtherance thereof would not *5211 ‘ enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties. ’ ’
The commission places reliance on the reeent case of Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.2d 426 [34 Cal.Rptr. 673, 386 P.2d 233], in urging that respondent court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present action. In that ease, however, the trial court would have been required to review an order of the commission, the validity thereof being specifically put in issue • and this court held that the scheme of review established by the Legislature would thereby be altered. In the present case, on the other hand, the validity of a commission order is not involved.
I would discharge the alternative writ of prohibition heretofore issued and deny the petition for a writ of prohibir tion.

Section 2106 of the Public Utilities Code provides, in part: “Any public utility which does, causes to be done, or permits any act, matter, or thing prohibited or declared unlawful, or which omits to do any act, matter, or thing required to be done, either by the Constitution, any law of this State, or any order or decision of the commission, shall be liable to the persons or corporations affected thereby for all loss, damages, or injury caused thereby or resulting therefrom. If the court finds that the act or omission was wilful, it may, in addition to the actual damages, award exemplary damages. An action to recover for such loss, damage, or injury may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by any corporation or person. ...”