AT&T's Motion to Dismiss, Amendment, and Associated Responses

AT&T requests the Commission to dismiss this proceeding on two grounds. First, AT&T claims that, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1702, Complainants fail to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted because the request for relief is moot. Second, AT&T alleges that Complainants illegally attempt to expand the scope of this proceeding beyond the original complaint.

AT&T states that its records indicate Complainants reported telephone service problems on December 4, 16, and 28, 2009, and March 8, 2010.⁴ However, AT&T contends it restored service to Complainants in each of these cases and compensated Complainants $208.41 for the interruptions in service.⁵ AT&T asserts that, in March 2011, it provided further compensation to Complainants in the form of a check for $255.94 to reimburse Complainants for all payments made to AT&T during the August 2009 through March 2010 service period.⁶ AT&T indicates that Tariff Rule 14 provides that liability for a service interruption shall not exceed the total amount of the charges to the customer for services during the period affected by the interruption.⁷ AT&T asserts that Complainants have received the relief they sought in the Complaint, making the Complaint moot and, therefore, the Commission should dismiss the Complaint.⁸

Accusing the Complainant of turning the Complaint into a service quality and rate case for rural California telephone service, AT&T argues that Complainant is legally precluded from doing so because complainants may not bring actions on behalf of other people and Complainant does not satisfy the requirements to challenge AT&T rates.⁹ Furthermore, AT&T points out that the Commission monitors and establishes standards for AT&T's telephone service quality.¹⁰

Complainants oppose AT&T's Motion and dispute that AT&T has reimbursed them for all payments made during the August 2009 to March 2010 service period. Further, Complainants state that AT&T referred their telephone service account to a collection agency in August 2010 thus harming Claimant's credit standing. Complainants argue that AT&T's allegation of expanding the scope is unfounded since the same telephone facilities that provide service to Complainants also provide service to surrounding rural communities.

In reply to Complainants' August 15, 2011 response, AT&T provides a copy of a check for $255.94 from AT&T written to and endorsed by Clarence Bush.¹¹ While maintaining that the Commission has consistently denied payment of damages in complaint proceedings, AT&T claims to have withdrawn the Complainants' account from the collection agency as of January 2011.

In a September 22, 2011, Amendment to the Motion, AT&T claims that, through discovery, Complainants admitted receiving and endorsing the AT&T check for $255.94.¹²

⁴ AT&T California Motion to Dismiss, August 29, 2011, at 3.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Id. at 4.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Id. at 6.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ AT&T Reply to Complainant's August 15, 2011 Response to Motion to Dismiss, filed on August 25, 2011, Attachment A.

¹² AT&T Amendment to July 29, 2011 Motion to Dismiss, filed on September 22, 2011
at 2-3.