Background
On October 18, 2007, Blue Casa filed a complaint against AT&T California (Defendant) alleging the violation of Pub. Util. Code § 451 and other applicable laws, and seeking injunctive relief. Blue Casa contends that AT&T California's attempts to discontinue or otherwise disrupt its ability to provide service to its existing and new customers are unjust and unreasonable. Blue Casa maintains that AT&T California's actions are because of Blue Casa's refusal to pay amounts claimed owed to AT&T California for 900/976 information services provided by third-party ISPs to Blue Casa end-users.
AT&T California responds that pursuant to the language that Complainant agreed to in both the interconnection agreement (ICA) and the ancillary or Local Wholesale Complete Agreement (LWCA), Blue Casa is liable for 900/976 charges associated with calls made by its end-users. AT&T California further argues that the LWCA is a private contract between the two parties, outside of the Commission's jurisdiction. Consequently, AT&T California urges the Commission to dismiss those portions of the complaint that rely on the LWCA.1 Blue Casa maintains that its complaint appropriately includes the LWCA, and the Commission has jurisdiction over it because the agreement involves the services of the public utility.
Concurrent with its complaint, Blue Casa filed an emergency motion for injunctive relief seeking an order prohibiting AT&T California from either discontinuing service to Blue Casa or its customers, or failing to accept and timely complete its wholesale service orders. On October 25, 2007, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) convened a hearing on the motion, and directed Blue Casa to substantiate the irreparable harm it faced; to detail its ability to escrow the disputed amount or alternatively post a surety bond; and to meet and confer with AT&T California to see if an accord could be reached to prevent the interruption of services. On November 2, 2007, Blue Casa advised the ALJ that it had agreed upon a payment arrangement with AT&T California to escrow the disputed amount until resolution of the matter.
On December 3, 2007, AT&T California moved the Commission to order Blue Casa to escrow the balance of the amount disputed under the ICA, because Blue Casa had reneged on the second installment of the escrow agreement. Blue Casa reported that it had made alternative arrangements to obtain the services that AT&T California provided to it under the ICA, because it objected to the escrow provision. At the same time, AT&T California urged the Commission to dismiss that portion of the complaint that arises out of the LWCA. Unilaterally, Blue Casa decided to cease payment under the escrow agreement, because it could not be compelled by AT&T California's interruption or discontinuance of services, services which it claims to have subsequently obtained elsewhere. On December 11, 2007, the ALJ directed Blue Casa either to place the remaining disputed funds immediately into escrow, in accordance with the ICA, or to honor the terms of the escrow agreement. As ordered, Blue Casa reaffirmed the terms of the November 2, 2007 agreement.2
On December 18, 2007, Blue Casa responded to AT&T California's motion, opposing dismissal of the LWCA-related portions of the complaint. On December 19, 2007, Blue Casa moved the Commission to dismiss the ICA-related portions of the complaint and to issue an order releasing the attendant escrowed amounts. On January 3, 2008, AT&T California opposed Blue Casa's request, and urged the Commission to resolve the pending dispute.
On April 2, 2008, the assigned Commissioner issued the Scoping Memo and Ruling of the proceeding, setting forth four issues as the parameter of this dispute and scheduling April 1, 2008 for the evidentiary hearing.
1 AT&T California's Motion to Partially Dismiss Blue Casa Communications' Complaint at p. 8 (December 3, 2007).
2 On December 11, 2007, Blue Casa moved for reconsideration of the ruling on the Emergency Motion and the Motion to Require Escrow.
