Rittiman

Rittiman v. Public Utilities Commission

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 13, 2022A162842MCalifornia12,629 words

Opinion

Opinion

Banke, J.

Filed 7/13/22 (unmodified opn. attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

BRANDON RITTIMAN et al., Petitioners, A162842

v. (Public Utilities PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Commission Nos. 20597, 20598, 20599 & Respondent. 20600)

ORDER MODIFYING

OPINION AND

DENYING REHEAR-

ING

[NO CHANGE IN

JUDGMENT]

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

1 apply to seeking rehearing of a CPUC resolution affirming the de- nial 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 rehear- ing” and replace with: The commission then has up…

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.