[REVIEW GRANTED] People ex rel. Orloff v. Pacific Bell (2001)

[Modification fn. * of Opinion (89 Cal. App. 4th 844; 108 Cal.Rprt,2d 48) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

THE PEOPLE ex rel. THOMAS J. ORLOFF, as District Attorney, etc., et al. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL et al. Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT.-

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 5, 2001, be modified in the following particulars:

1. Change the first sentence of the first paragraph [89 Cal. App. 4th 847, advance report, 1st par. of opn., lines 1-4] to read:

The district attorneys of three Northern California counties--Alameda, San Mateo, and Monterey--appeal from a judgment dismissing their suit for injunctive relief and civil penalties under the unfair competition law (UCL).

2. Delete the fifth and sixth sentences of the third paragraph [89 Cal. App. 4th 848, advance report, 2d par., lines 12-15] (retaining fn. 3 at the end of the new sentence) under the heading designated BACKGROUND to read:

Both the ALJ's proposed ruling and a competing tentative ruling by Assigned Commission Neeper, recommending somewhat different remedies, were appealed to the full Commission, where they are pending review.

3. Insert the following new footnote number 11 at the end of the fourth sentence of the fifth paragraph [89 Cal. App. 4th 859, advance report, line 8] under the heading designated III:

In his second proposed decision, Commissioner Neeper ruled the utility had violated section 2896, bringing his conclusion on this point in line with that of the ALJ. His revised decision, however, continued to reach other conclusions at odds with those of the ALJ. [90 Cal. App. 4th 529e]

Renumber the existing footnote 12 to footnote 13 [89 Cal. App. 4th 859, advance report, 1st par., last line].

The above modification does not effect any change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

FN *. This modification requires movement of text affecting pages 859-860 in the bound volume report.