The propane business DeCarli’s rebuked claims that it billed customers late or improperly, arguing that the vast majority of customers have been billed in a timely manner and the few who weren’t should not be entitled to free propane, according to recent court filings.
The filings, submitted last month, come as the business and the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit settled in 2010 are set to meet in Marin Superior Court next Tuesday.
This past fall, Scott Yancy, Susan Deixler and Luigi Venezia filed a complaint that DeCarli’s was not abiding by the terms of the settlement agreement. Specifically, they alleged that the company was not billing in a timely fashion and that some customers were being billed for charges as old as eight years.
But lawyers for DeCarli’s, Perkins Coie LLP, wrote in a court filing that all “gallons customers,” the vast majority of customers, have always been billed within 30 days of delivery, with tags left at the tank as well as a mailed bill, and that it is legal to send bills for older unpaid invoices. They also attest that the settlement agreement expired in 2013 and is therefore unenforceable. The company does admit that eight metered customers were not billed for years, due to a “mistake.”
They also wrote that when the lawsuit was filed in 2009, the company temporarily stopped invoicing meter customers, of which there are eight. DeCarli’s began billing them again in 2010, but after an employee left in 2011, “his replacement failed to continue sending invoices.” Billing began again in late 2014.
Despite the delay, the propane company argues that customers who continued to use the propane without paying should not have assumed they were entitled to free gas. “[E]ach metered plaintiff knew they should have to pay for propane they used, and each admit in their declarations that they received and used [DeCarli’s] propane without paying for it. There is no basis to refuse to pay [DeCarli’s] for the propane they used.”
As for the settlement, the lawyers point to language in the agreement that stipulat-ed a three-year expiration date. Yet even if it is in effect, they wrote, the settlement never said customers would be entitled to free propane if not billed in a timely way. Rather, they argue the only action the court could take would be to require DeCarli’s to bill in a timely way—which it is already doing. (They also say that, were the settlement still in effect, the plaintiffs would have violated it by commenting to the Light for a previous article about the complaint.) Finally, they assert that it is proper to bill for unpaid invoices.
The plaintiffs had argued that some customers were getting bills up to eight years old. DeCarli’s responded in the filing that “if the customer never paid a prior bill… nothing in either the settlement agreement or California law prohibits [DeCarli’s] from sending statements reflecting the unpaid amounts owed.”