Background

Complainants initially filed a proposed class action in the Superior Court on March 10, 2009. On July 28, 2009, the Superior Court ordered Complainants to file an administrative complaint before the Commission. On August 27, 2009, La Collina Dal Lago, L.P. and Bernau Development Corporation (Complainants) filed the instant against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Defendant), alleging that the Defendant violated its Tariff Rule 15.

During the first prehearing conference (PHC) held on November 16, 2009, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) required parties to brief the issue of judicial estoppel as applied to certain assertions made by Defendant in its Answer. On December 4, 2009, Complainants moved to exclude contrary assertions under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Defendant responded on December 18, 2009. Ultimately the parties stipulated to the use of the discovery from Jensen Enterprises, Inc. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc., et. al (Case No. C-06-0247 SI) but reserved their rights to make objections to its use if necessary. On June 24, 2010, the ALJ denied Complainants' motion to exclude contrary assertions under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

After the second PHC was held on May 27, 2010, a scoping ruling was issued by the Assigned Commissioner. Evidentiary Hearings were held on November 16 and 17, 2010. Concurrent opening briefs were filed on January 21, 2011 and concurrent replay briefs were filed on February 4, 2011.

On March 11, 2011, submission was set aside by the ALJ to allow both parties to brief the issue of the applicability of certain statutes of limitations to the underlying complaint. A stipulation on the issue of the statute of limitations was filed on March 23, 2011. On May 12, 2011, the ALJ ruled that the statute of limitations matter was outside the scope of the proceeding.

Due to time constraints, and the complex issues in this matter, the six-month extension is necessary because of the possibility that one of the parties would file an appeal of the decision within the 30-day period provided for such appeals in Rule 14.4(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure or that a Commissioner will file a request for review of the decision within the 30-day period provided for such requests in Rule 14.4(b). The Commission would require additional time to consider an appeal or request for review. Because of these circumstances, we have concluded that it is appropriate to extend the 12-month deadline in the case for an additional six months, until February 27, 2012.