The opinion in Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 1224, is an instructive example of circumstances under which judicial jurisdiction is not ousted by section 1759. Plaintiffs alleged price fixing claims against two cellular telephone service companies, asserting an unlawful antitrust conspiracy in violation of the Cartwright Act. ( Bus. & Prof. Code, 16720 et seq.) (See Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1242-1247.) In sustaining defendants' demurrer to the complaint, the trial court ruled the utilities were immune from Cartwright Act liability because of the commission's exclusive jurisdiction over utility ratemaking. Relying on the jurisdictional formulation in Waters, supra, 12 Cal. 3d 1, the Court of Appeal reversed. "We cannot conceive," it wrote, "how a price fixing claim under the Cartwright Act could 'hinder or frustrate' the PUC's supervisory or regulatory policies. The only apparent policy of the PUC that could be affected is its regulation of rates charged by cellular telephone service providers. However plaintiff does not dispute that the PUC has jurisdiction over rates, nor does it seek any relief requiring the PUC to change any rates it has approved. Plaintiff is merely seeking treble damages and injunctive relief for alleged price fixing under the Cartwright Act." ( Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1246.)