This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 08/17/2022 at 00:12:04 (UTC).

Rittiman et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

Case Summary

On 06/14/2021 Rittiman filed an Other lawsuit against Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 1 located in Statewide, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***2842

  • Filing Date:

    06/14/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

 

Party Details

Petitioners

Brandon Rittiman

Tegna Inc.

Respondent

Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

Steven David Zansberg

Attorney at LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN D. ZANSBERG, L.L.C.

100 Fillmore Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80206

Respondent Attorneys

David Arthur Urban

Attorney at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

135 Main Street, 7Th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Rachel Ann Peterson

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Kathleen Sue Chovan

3104 O St # 295

Sacramento, CA 95816

Suzanne Solomon

Attorney at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore

135 Main St., 7Th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Christofer Charles Nolan

Attorney at California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102-3214

Keenan Patrick O'Connor

Attorney at LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE

6033 West Century Boulevard, 5Th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90045

 

Court Documents

A162842

Court of Appeal Opinion

A162842M

Court of Appeal Opinion

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/17/2022
  • HearingDescription: Remittitur issued.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2022
  • DocketDescription: Mod. of opinion filed (no change in judgment).; Notes: THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 17, 2022, be modified as follows: 1. On page 16 modify footnote 11 to read as follows: In some specified instances, an application for rehearing must be filed within 10 days of issuance of the challenged order or decision. (Pub. Util. Code, 1731, subds. (b)(1), (c), (d).) However, the CPUC seems to agree that the 30-day, rather than the 10-day, period would apply to seeking rehearing of a CPUC resolution affirming the denial of a PRA request. 2. On page 16, delete paragraph beginning with "The commission then has up to 60 days to either grant or deny an application for rehearing" and replace with: The commission then has up to 60 days to either grant or deny an application for rehearing. (Pub. Util. Code, 1733, subds. (a) & (b).) If the commission does not grant or deny an application within 60 days, the party seeking rehearing may consider the application denied and seek judicial review. (Ibid.) Whether or not the challenged order or decision is suspended during this time depends on when the application for rehearing is filed and how quickly the commission acts on the application. (Ibid.) 3. On page 16, delete paragraph beginning with "Thus, the statutory times specified by the rehearing statutes-which, not even accounting for any rehearing, itself, total at a minimum at least 70 days&" and replace with the following paragraphs: If the commission grants the application without "a suspension of the order involved, the commission shall forthwith proceed to hear the matter with all dispatch and shall determine the matter within 20 days after final submission" on rehearing.13 (Pub. Util. Code, 1734.) Otherwise, there is no timeframe for rehearing and final determination.14 Thus, just the application-for-rehearing process for a resolution affirming the denial of a PRA request, itself, can take 90 days (30 days to file an application and 60 days for the commission to act). And if the commission grants the application, there is no time frame for the rehearing and disposition process.15 These extended time periods cannot be squared with the procedural provisions of the PRA mandating that agencies respond to requests within a much tighter timeframe. 4. In inserting footnotes on page 16 (footnotes 12, 13, 14 & 15), the subsequent footnote numbering shall be modified to the correct sequencing.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2022
  • DocketDescription: Rehearing petition filed.; Notes: Respondent California Public Utilities Commission's Petition for Limited Rehearing

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Dismissed by opinion; Disposition Type: Final The CPUC's demurrer to the petition for writ of mandate is sustained without leave to amend on the ground the records petitioner seeks are exempt from disclosure under the Governor's correspondence exemption (Gov. Code, 6254, subd. (l)). This proceeding is therefore dismissed.; Publication Status: Signed Published; Author: Banke, Kathleen M.; Participants: Margulies, Sandra Lynn (Concur) Humes, James M. (Concur)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2022
  • DocketDescription: Opinion filed.; Notes: (Signed Published) The CPUC's demurrer to the petition for writ of mandate is sustained without leave to amend on the ground the records petitioner seeks are exempt from disclosure under the Governor's correspondence exemption (Gov. Code, 6254, subd. (l)). This proceeding is therefore dismissed.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2022
  • DocketDescription: Cause argued and submitted.; Notes: Steven Zansberg appeared on behalf of petitioners Christofer Nolan appeared on behalf of respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2022
  • DocketDescription: Returned document for non-conformance.; Notes: 5 separate documents rejected with message: Exhibits must conform to Local Rule 12 (b) and CRC 8.74(a)(3). Petitioner's counsel also noticed via email.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2022
  • DocketDescription: Letter sent to:; Notes: Focus letter for Oral Argument.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2022
  • DocketDescription: Email sent to:; Notes: Email with 4/28/22 Test Run info

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2022
  • DocketDescription: Email sent to:; Notes: Email sent to counsel with BlueJeans OA link

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketDescription: Order denying petition filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT: The petition for writ of mandate is denied. (Gov. Code, 6253.4, subd. (a), (b)(28); Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 903 ["[I]f the petitioner presents a question that he could have litigated before the commission but did not, we are barred from addressing it by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies."], disapproved on another ground in Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 899; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 291-292 ["[Petitioners] still have their appeal to the commission, which appeal has not yet been decided adversely to them, and prior to the prosecution of this appeal they have no right to demand an extraordinary writ from a court."]; Contractors' State License Bd. v. Superior Court (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 771, 778 ["A party generally must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief in court."]; see Asimow, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Administrative Law (The Rutter Group Dec. 2020 update) 29:946 ["Unlike the 10-day deadline and possible 14-day extension Gov.C. 6253(c) specifies for providing the notice of determination [citation], there is no deadline expressed in a number of days for actually producing the records. Rather, Gov.C. 6253(b) says the agency 'shall make the records promptly available.' And Gov.C. 6253(d) provides that nothing in the PRA 'shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.' "], italics added.) We note that we will not reach arguments first presented in petitioners' reply brief. (Magana v. Superior Court (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 840, 854, fn. 2; County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 434, 452, fn. 14.) Before: Humes, P.J., Margulies, J., and Banke, J.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketDescription: Reply filed to:; Notes: Petitioners' Reply to Respondent's Preliminary Opposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • DocketDescription: Opposition filed.; Notes: Respondent's Preliminary Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • DocketDescription: Appellant's appendix filed.; Notes: Corrected petitioner's appendix.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • DocketDescription: Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filing fee.; Notes: paid through Truefiling

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Cover Page & Table of Contents (Note: Two pages, only)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Public Utilities Commison of The State of California is a litigant

Latest cases where Tegna, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer O'CONNOR KEENAN P.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Rachel Ann Peterson