The court in Gantner agreed in June 2022 to answer these questions asked by the Ninth Circuit: “(1) Does California Public Utilities Code section 1759 preempt a plaintiff’s claim of negligence brought against a utility if the alleged negligent acts were not approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (‘CPUC’), but those acts foreseeably resulted in the utility having to take subsequent action (here, a Public Safety Power Shutoff), pursuant to CPUC guidelines, and that subsequent action caused the plaintiff’s alleged injury? (2) Does PG&E’s Electric Rule Number 14 shield PG&E from liability for an interruption in its services that PG&E determines is necessary for the safety of the public at large, even if the need for that interruption arises from PG&E’s own negligence?” Justice Leondra Kruger is recused. Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal Justice Terry O’Rourke is sitting pro tem in her place. Horvitz & Levy represents PG&E in the Supreme Court.
In Salazar, when the court granted review in October 2022, it limited the issue to, “Did the Court of Appeal err by finding the record clearly indicates the trial court would not have imposed a low term sentence if it had been fully aware of its discretion under newly-added subdivision (b)(6) of Penal Code section 1170? (See People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.)”
The opinions can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 a.m.