holding that partnership may assert action based upon right to privacy
How later courts described this case
- holding that partnership may assert action based upon right to privacy
- denying that a plaintiff-business could "seek damages for hurt feelings because of 'its' right to be left alone"
- “Where the complaint alleges both a conspiracy and the commission of a wrongful act, the only significance of the former allegation is its rendering of each participant in the wrongful act liable as a joint tortfeasor, regardless of his degree of participation.”
- question of justification “comprises a factual issue which should properly be placed before the trier of fact”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STANIFORTH, Acting P. J.
concur in the judgment of reversal.
*414 Plaintiff alleges inter alia:, “(a) Without notifying plaintiff of its intent to terminate water service to the entire apartment complex, without providing plaintiff with a hearing regarding termination of said water service, and without providing plaintiff with an opportunity to pay any amounts due and owing on account of the provision of water service to said apartment complex, and after tender of payment for water service on seven (7) of the accounts hereinabove described, defendant City, by and through its City Manager, on or about September 16, 1975, terminated water service to the entire Three Hundred Six (306) units in the apartment complex hereinabove described;. . . ”
These facts, standing alone, authorized the relief sought. The United States Supreme Court in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft (1978) 436 U.S. 1 [ 56 L.Ed.2d 30, 40-43 , 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1561-1563 ], held a municipal utility liable in damages for failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity for hearing prior to termination of essential utilities if under state law the customer had a protected interest in continuing service absent cause. (Id.., at pp. 1560-1562 [56 L.Ed.2d at pp. 39, 40].)
California law has long recognized a utility customer’s right to damages for the wrongful termination of services. (Schultz v. Town of Lakeport (1936), 5 Cal.2d 377, 383 ; [ 54 P.2d 1110 , 55 P.2d 485 , 108 A.L.R. 1168 ] 53 Cal.Jur.3d, Public Utilities, § 115, pp. 142-146.) More recently the Legislature prescribed added protection for residential customers of utilities. Under present state law a utility may not terminate service to a residential dwelling on account of nonpayment of delinquent account unless notice is given at least seven days prior to proposed termination. Nor shall termination be carried out during the pendency of the investigation of a consumer complaint or dispute. (Pub. Util. Code, § 779 (amended 1977).)
Thus state law recognizes a property interest which is cognizable under federal due process as analyzed in Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, supra, 436 U.S. 1 . Upon this additional basis the trial court abused its discretion in concluding plaintiff did not state a cause of action.
Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 29, 1980.