USA – CALIFORNIA LAW AND PRACTICE Contributed by: Nora Sheriff, Gwenneth O’Hara, Robert Dato, Efrat Cogan, Samir Hafez and Antonio Carrejo, Buchalter
constitutional challenge that could be asserted in court. 10.3 Procedural Errors It is possible to challenge the lawfulness of a CPUC Decision or Resolution on the grounds that the CPUC did not follow the relevant pro - cedure for that decision; indeed, failure to fol - low its own rules or failure “to proceed in the manner required by law” can present a strong case for appeal, as courts tend to be confident in their abilities to decide matters of procedure. Courts have found that this legal basis includes the Commission’s violation of its own Rules of Practice and Procedure, as well as a violation of a specific statute. 10.4 Factual Errors It is possible to bring a challenge that the deci - sion-maker made an error of fact, and this is one of the two possible grounds for an application for rehearing at the agency level. At the appellate level, as a general rule, courts have held that the CPUC’s findings of fact are final and not sub - ject to judicial review. Therefore, to challenge a decision on the grounds that the decision-maker made an error of fact, a party must show that the error undermines the validity of the decision under criteria set forth in the statute, and that the error was prejudicial. A challenge may also be brought if the decision or resolution is not supported by the Commis - sion’s findings. Additionally, a challenge may be made if the findings in the CPUC decision are not supported by substantial evidence when
abdicated or fettered their discretion. A chal - lenge can also be brought if the Commission’s order or decision was procured by fraud, or con - stituted an abuse of discretion. A decision-mak - er’s prejudicial abuse of discretion may result in the annulment of the Commission’s decision. When reviewing the decision-maker’s exercise of discretion, the Court’s inquiry is limited to whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely unsupported by evidence. A deci - sion based solely on the decision-maker’s will or desire, and not supported by substantial or reasonable grounds, is considered arbitrary and It is possible to bring a challenge on the basis that the decision-maker was biased. The Com - mission has adopted procedures regarding the disqualification of Commissioners and Admin - istrative Law Judges due to bias or prejudice. A party may file a motion for disqualification for cause to disqualify the assigned Administrative Law Judge or a Commissioner if they believe actions were taken during the proceeding that prove bias or prejudice. A motion can also be brought if there were actions taken outside the public record of a proceeding showing any com - mitment to provide relief to a party to the pro - ceeding. 10.7 Unequal Treatment It is possible to bring a challenge on the basis of unequal treatment. California law does not expressly include “unequal treatment” as a ground for judicial review of CPUC decisions, but the law does permit legal challenge if the CPUC order or decision violates the petitioner’s rights under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution. Therefore, if the unequal treatment infringes upon the petitioner’s capricious. 10.6 Bias
viewed in light of the whole record. 10.5 Abdication or Fettering of Discretion
A party may challenge the lawfulness of a CPUC decision on the grounds that the decision-maker
262 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook