Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV01084, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01084, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01084 Hearing Date: November 27, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 27, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01084

CASE NAME: 3Sheets, LLC dba Easton Gym Company v. Kreation Juicery, Inc., et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Southern California Edison Company

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, 3Sheets, LLC dba Easton Gym Company

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION: Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint as against SCE

Tentative Rulings: SCE’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, but without prejudice to plaintiff pursuing its claims against SCE via the PUC’s process for customers to dispute their Edison bills

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff, 3Sheets, LLC dba Easton Gym Company (“Plaintiff”), filed a Complaint against Defendants, Kreation Juicery, Inc., Southern California Edison, and DOES 1 through 100. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200. On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Trespass; and (3) Fraud.

On August 9, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation and order to allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint.

On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Common Counts; and (2) General Negligence.

Now, Defendant Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) files a demurrer to the SAC.

B. Procedural

On September 19, 2024, Defendant SCE filed this demurrer. On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. On November 20, SCE filed a reply brief.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Along with SCE’s moving papers, it has requested this court judicially notice the following:

1. Edison’s Tariff Rule 10, which governs “Disputed Bills,” (Declaration of Enrique A. Monagas, Exhibit 1); and

2. Edison’s Tariff Rule 5, which governs “Special Information Required on Forms,” (Declaration of Enrique A. Monagas, Exhibit 2.)

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 451 and 452, this court GRANTS SCE’s request and takes judicial notice of the above.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)¿¿¿

A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

B. Discussion

Here, SCE demurs to Plaintiff’s SAC on the grounds that it argues this court does not have jurisdiction of the first or second causes of action based on Public Utility Code section 1759. Pursuant to Public Utility Code section 1759, “(a) No court of this state, except the Supreme Court and the court of appeal, 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, as provided by law and the rules of court.”

(Pub. Util. Code, § 1759, subd. (a).) SCE contends that Plaintiff’s allegations against it, require application of its Tariff rule 10 and rule 5.

SCE’s Tariff Rule 10 governs the procedures “[w]hen a customer and SCE fail to agree on a bill for electric service.” (Monagas Decl., Ex. 1 [Rule 10] at Sheet 1.) In Rule 10, the Public Utilities Commission has promulgated a multi-step process for customers to dispute their Edison bills, as outlined in SCE’s moving papers. Further, SCE’s Tariff Rule 5 submits that if the customer is not satisfied with the resolution of the informal complaint process before the Consumer Affairs Branch, “[f]urther appeal may be filed under the Commission’s formal procedure.” (Monagas Decl., Ex. 2 [Rule 5] at Sheet 1.) Even in Plaintiff’s threadbare opposition brief, it concedes that SCE’s Tariff Rule provides a mechanism to resolve billing disputes with SCE customers before the Public Utilities Commission. However, Plaintiff argues that the Commission was not set up to resolve claims by those who are non-customers of SCE. Thus, Plaintiff argues that because Rules 5 and 10 only apply to SCE customers, the demurrer should be overruled as Plaintiff is not an SCE customer. As such, the crux of the issue presented by the demurrer is whether Plaintiff is a customer.

In SCE’s reply brief, it notes that its Tariff Rule 1 defines a customer as: “a party with whom SCE is doing business with or without a billing relationship.” Here, although Plaintiff has not alleged he was a customer, he does state that he paid SCE’s service bills. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff did some business with SCE. As such, in accordance with the Tariff rule , and pursuant to Public Utility Code section 1759, subdivision (a), this court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, SCE’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

SCE is ordered to provide notice of this court’s ruling.