Supreme Court
Docket (Register of Actions)
RITTIMAN v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Division SF
Division SF
Case Number S270145
| Date | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 07/30/2021 | Petition for review filed |
Petitioner: Brandon Rittiman Petitioner: TEGNA Inc. |
| 07/30/2021 | Received: |
Proof of Service for Petition for Review Brandon Rittiman, Petitioner Steven David Zansberg, Retained counsel -------------------------------------------- Tegna Inc., Petitioner Steven David Zansberg, Retained cou |
| 07/30/2021 | Record requested | Court of Appeal record was imported and is available in electronic format. |
| 08/06/2021 | Filed: | Letter from the California Public Utilities Commission dated 8/6/2021 informing the court it will not be filing an answer to the petition. |
| 09/15/2021 | Informal response requested |
Dear Counsel: The court has directed that I request an update on the current status of the Public Records Act appeals that are the subject of the petition pending before the court in this matter. The response may be in the form of a letter, and should address any current schedule for the circulation of a Draft Resolution and for the matters to be placed on the agenda at a Commission meeting, as well as any other information relevant to the resolution of the disputes under Commission General Order 66-D. The response may also provide the court with any other relevant information not fully discussed in the Commission's June 24, 2021, Preliminary Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed with the Court of Appeal. The letter response is to be served upon petitioners and filed in this court on or before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 2021. Petitioners shall have until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 4, 2021, to serve and file a reply. |
| 09/27/2021 | Informal response filed |
Respondent: Public Utilities Commission |
| 10/04/2021 | Reply to informal response filed |
Petitioner: Brandon Rittiman Petitioner: TEGNA Inc. |
| 10/04/2021 | Exhibit(s) lodged | Exhibit 1 to reply to informal response |
| 10/07/2021 | Time extended to grant or deny review | The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including October 28, 2021, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied. This order is entered nunc pro tunc as of September 27, 2021. |
| 10/20/2021 | Petition for review granted; transferred to CA 1/1 with directions to issue an order to show cause |
The petition for review is granted. The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, with directions to vacate its order denying mandate and to issue an order directing respondent superior court to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, Groban and Jenkins, JJ. |
| 10/20/2021 | Returned record | Petition for review, informal response, reply to informal response |
| 11/22/2021 | Order filed |
The court's order dated October 20, 2021 is amended nunc pro tunc to read as follows: The petition for review is granted. The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, with directions to vacate its order denying mandate and to issue an order directing respondent California Public Utilities Commission to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. |
Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.