11. Elder v. Pacific Bell

205 Cal App 4th 841; 2012 Cal App LEXIS 514 (April 30, 2012)

The Court of Appeal (First District, Division Three) reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint against Pacific Bell and OAN for damages arising out of alleged violations of Section 2890, the “anti’cramming” statute. The opinion does not clearly set forth the basis for trial court’s dismissal stating that it rested on a determination the Commission had “exclusive jurisdiction” over the claim. The Court of Appeal then analyzed the matter through recourse to Section 1759 jurisprudence. The Court found that the defendants had not satisfied the third prong of Covalt. An action for damages arising out of Section 2890, the Court held, it did not interfere with the Commission’s exercise of regulatory authority over telephone billing through its G.O. No. 168.

Download PDF