Leprino Foods Co. v. PG & E
Filed 3/21/06 Leprino Foods Co. v. PG & E CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. |
F046411
(Super. Ct. No. 04C0029)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Louis F. Bissig, Judge.
Knox, Lemmon & Anapolsky, Thomas S. Knox and Glen C. Hansen for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kahn, Soares & Conway, Jan L. Kahn; Mark H. Penskar and Clifford J. Gleicher for Defendant and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company (Leprino) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). The trial court sustained PG&E's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend on the ground it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because either exclusive or primary jurisdiction rests with the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) over the matters alleged in the complaint. Leprino contends original jurisdiction is proper in the trial court and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not bar this suit nor require its stay. We will conclude the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Establishment and Suspension of Direct Access
In December 1995, the PUC approved certain policies governing the restructuring of California's electric services industry. (Re Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation (1995) 64 Cal.P.U.C.2d 1.) These policies include establishing â€
