Facts

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. licensed space on its utility poles to install fiber-optic cables for general telecommunication purposes. A group of landowners filed a class action suit against PG&E.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had exceeded the scope of its utility easements encumbering their land. They claimed trespass and violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200. They argued that the easements were for utility purposes only, and did not permit the installation of fiber-optic cables for general telecommunication purposes. They contended that defendant had never sought, nor received, permission to utilize the easements for the installation of general telecommunication fiber-optics, and that they had never been given notice of the cables' installation.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied the allegations, and demurred on all of plaintiffs' causes of action. It contended that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by Public Utilities Code Section 1759, which precludes judicial action that may contravene, hinder, or affect any policy or decision of the state Public Utilities Commission. Defendant emphasized that the PUC had approved the licensing agreements related to the installation of the fiber-optic cables.

Further, defendant alleged that the case was not proper for class treatment. Defendant argued that the facts vary amongst class members regarding their individual property interests, easement language, knowledge, land values, damages, and burdens. It claimed that such individual factual and legal issues dominated the causes of action, as well as potential defenses and counter-claims. Finally, defendant claimed that plaintiffs' demand for a share in the licensing revenues would contravene the PUC's authority because the PUC had ordered that the revenues be given to the rate payers and/or shareholders or otherwise be disbursed as determined by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It also claimed the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs was inconsistent with the PUC's policy of encouraging joint use of utility pole space for general telecommunication purposes.

Damages

Plaintiffs asserted additional burdens were placed on their property, for which they were not compensated. They sought punitive damages, compensation for the diminution in land value, and a share of the revenue generated from the licensing agreements. They also sought to enjoin further installation and operation of fiber-optic cables.

Result

Defendant's demurrer was granted as to all causes of action, with prejudice, based on lack of jurisdiction. The class allegations were also dismissed.

Other Information

Plaintiffs have appealed, defendant has filed a cost bill.