PAUL MARGARITAS ET AL VS. LESTER WONG ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC23604432 - June 20, 2025 Hearing date: June 20, 2025 Case number: CGC23604432 Case title: PAUL MARGARITAS ET AL VS. LESTER WONG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23604432 | Case Title: | | PAUL MARGARITAS ET AL VS. LESTER WONG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-20 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion calendar for June 20, 2025, line 3.

Cross Defendant PG&E's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

First, the two-year statute of limitations does not forbid Plaintiff's claims against PG&E because the body of the FAC properly names PG&E as a Defendant and was filed within two years of the underlying accident. PG&E had adequate notice that it was being sued because the FAC described PG&E as a "Defendant" in paragraph 7, paragraph 28, and the heading for cause of action #7. Additionally, the three-year deadline for PG&E to have been served with the FAC has not lapsed.

Finally, PG&E has also not shown that the California Public Utilities Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. The cases cited by PG&E do not stand for a general rule that utility companies cannot be sued for ordinary negligence. Rather, in each cited case where Public Utilities Code Section 1759 barred a negligence suit, the utility company made a factual showing that it had an applicable rule barring liability at the time. For instance, the Court in Waters v. Pacific Telephone Co. (1974) held that the lawsuit must conflict with a "declared" policy and found such a conflict when the utility company asserted its policy in its Answer. (12 Cal.3d 1, 4, 5).

Additionally, the cases In re: SDG&E Consolidated Cases (2021) and Busalacchi v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2013) dismissed negligence claims on Motions for Summary Judgment where each utility company admitted into evidence rules that the utility enacted to prohibit liability in the manner sought by the Plaintiffs' causes of action. (See 2021 WL 662259 at *8-9; 2013 WL 12100702 at *5-7). Thus, here, judgment in favor of PG&E is inappropriate at this time because PG&E has not shown that there is a specific commission policy that prohibits liability for Plaintiffs' causes of action. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tent ative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear. | |