Supreme Court of California

The California Public Utilities Commission's agreement to a settlement and stipulated judgment did not violate the provisions of Assembly Bill 1890, and procedures employed did not violate either the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act or Public Utilities Code section 454.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/21/2003
• Published 08/21/2003

Judges

• WERDEGAR, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Robert E. Finkelstein;  Strumwasser & Woocher, Michael J. Strumwasser, Fredric D. Woocher, Santa Monica, Johanna R. Shargel and Lea Rappaport Geller, Stanford, for Intervener and Appellant., Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, Steuart H. Thomsen, James M. Cain, Keith R. McCrea, James M. Bushee and Alisa N. Stein, Washington, DC, for the California Manufacturers & Technology Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Intervener and Appellant., Harvey Rosenfield, Santa Moncia and Pamela Pressley, for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Intervener and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Stephen Pickett, Rosemead, Barbara Reeves, Kris G. Vyas;  Munger, Tolles & Olson, Ronald L. Olson, John W. Spiegel, Henry Weissmann, Los Angeles, and Kelly M. Klaus, San Francisco, for Plaintiff and Respondent., Gary M. Cohen, Mary F. McKenzie, San Francisco, Harvey Y. Morris and Carrie G. Pratt, for Defendants and Respondents., Barry P. Goode, for Governor Gray Davis as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents., Smiland & Khachigian, William M. Smiland, Kenneth L. Khachigian, Christopher G. Foster, Los Angeles;  Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo and Marc D. Joseph, South San Francisco, for California Chamber of Commerce, California Small Business Roundtable, California Business Roundtable, Consumers First, Consumers Coalition of California, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL CIO and the Coalition of California Utility Employees as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent and Defendants and Respondents.