Discussion

AT&T has moved to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) AT&T asserts it has a unilateral right to dismissal without prejudice because there has not yet been an evidentiary hearing on the veil piercing issue; and (2) a dismissal would promote administrative efficiency.

Parties do not have a unilateral right to dismissal prior to hearings. Prior to dismissing a case, the Commission must consider how the public interest is implicated. Although the procedural status of a case may be a factor in evaluating the nature of the public interest, it is not determinative. (See, e.g., D.01-02-017 (denying all-party motion to dismiss on the basis that despite the fact evidentiary hearings had not been held, the public interest required the proceeding to remain open).)

In the instant case, the public interest would not be served by keeping this proceeding open. In addition, the Commission agrees that in the interest of administrative efficiency, the issue should be dismissed and adjudicated in the bankruptcy court.