Disenhouse

Disenhouse v. Peevey

Good Law
172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 549·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 487·226 Cal. App. 4th 1096·2014 WL 2464960
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 2014D063799California1,798 words

Opinion

Opinion

McConnell, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, we must reconcile a Public Utilities Code provision depriving the superior courts of jurisdiction “to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the [Public Utilities Commission] in the performance of its official duties” (Pub. Util. Code, § 1759, subd. (a)) with a Government Code provision authorizing any interested person to “commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations” of the state’s open meeting law. (Gov. Code, § 11130, subd. (a).) We conclude a person desiring to commence such an action against the Public Utilities Commission (commission) may only do so by filing a petition for writ of mandate in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.

BACKGROUND

Masada Disenhouse filed a complaint for an injunction in the superior court to stop members of the commission from proceeding with a meeting in San Diego in March 2013. Disenhouse alleged that, since the commission would not permit her to attend the meeting because of her affiliation with the Sierra Club, the meeting violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Act). (Gov. Code, § 11120 et seq.)

Two…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.