Market-based rate tariffs

Plaintiff, the California Attorney General, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which sustained defendant power company's demurrer to a complaint alleging that the power company had received excessive payments by engaging in unfair competition and commodity manipulation schemes that damaged California energy consumers.

Market-based rate tariffs, approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), were in effect when the allegedly unfair acts occurred. The trial court determined that the filed rate doctrine, which provided for federal preemption under the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., applied to the market-based rates at issue and precluded any remedy that would assume a rate different from that determined by FERC. Visit the one of the best Los Angeles employment law lawyers who know all about California Los Angeles laws.

The court, noting that FERC had exercised its authority under 16 U.S.C. § 824e to award refunds where market machinations resulted in other than just and reasonable rates, stated that any monetary relief would be in excess of the tariffs eventually applied by FERC and therefore would be barred by the filed rate doctrine. Market-based rates did not fall outside of the purview of the filed rate doctrine. Imposing penalties would grant relief in excess of the tariffs and would conflict with FERC's exclusive regulatory power. Injunctive relief also was barred by the filed rate doctrine. Absent specific proposed amendments on appeal, no abuse of the trial court's discretion under Code Civ. Proc., § 472c, subd. (a), was found in the denial of leave to amend.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Respondent state filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of appellant's convictions of grand theft, practicing medicine without a license, and fraudulently providing cancer treatment from the Superior Court, Los Angeles County (California), based on the fact that appellant severed all contact with his attorneys and voluntarily placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.

Appellant was convicted of numerous offenses involving grand theft, practicing medicine without a license, and fraudulently providing cancer treatment. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and successfully completed the sentence. Respondent state filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that appellant resided out of the country and had severed ties with his attorneys. The court granted the motion. Appellant served his sentence and lawfully emigrated from the United States. He deliberately severed all involvement on his part in the appeal. An appellate court only had jurisdiction to entertain a case and decide it if there was a litigant before it against whom the court could have enforced its decision. Respondent state's motion to dismiss was granted because the appellate court did not have jurisdiction over an appellant who placed himself out of the country and who severed contacts with his attorneys.

The trial court found in respondent's favor, and appellant challenged the ruling, arguing that respondent did not diligently seek recovery from the individual officers of the real estate business as required. The court held that respondent was required to diligently seek recovery from all parties responsible for their loss before suing appellant. The court determined that the officers could have been personally liable, and ordered that respondents seek recovery from them, before holding appellant liable.

The court reversed the judgment of the lower court, and held that respondents failed to diligently sue individual officers of a real estate business for defrauding them, before seeking compensation from appellant real estate commissioner. The court reversed the trial court verdict in respondent's favor and held that before appellant could be held liable, respondent had to first attempt to seek compensation from the individual officers.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service