Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision

Complainant has appealed from the decision of the Presiding Officer (POD), alleging three errors. First, it argues that the POD failed to consider all the evidence and arguments presented, and incorrectly applied California law governing contract interpretation. Second, Complainant maintains that the POD erred in finding that Blue Casa was required to follow the procedures set forth in the ICA for disputing AT&T California's bills. Finally, Blue Casa contends that the POD incorrectly concluded that AT&T California is entitled to collect late payment charges based on Complainant's failure to pay its bills for charges associated with its customers' 900/976 calls.

AT&T California responded that the POD appropriately considered the evidence and all of the arguments presented. It asserted that the plain and unambiguous language of the ICA requires Blue Casa to pay for 900/976 charges if Blue Casa decides not to order blocking, and none of the ICA provisions that Blue Casa cites in its appeal changes this conclusion. AT&T California also noted that the clear contractual language of the ICA, as well as common sense, demonstrate that if Blue Casa believed it did not owe AT&T California for the 900/976 charges its own customers incurred, then Blue Casa was under an obligation to file a dispute with AT&T California and follow the procedures set forth in the ICA. In response to Complainant's contention regarding the POD's holding with respect to the late payment charges, AT&T California stated that not only did Blue Casa waive its right to challenge the holding on this point by failing to address late payment charges in its opening or reply briefs, Blue Casa's new arguments do not support its position in any event.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, and have found that Complainant has not identified any legal or factual errors in the POD; therefore, we affirm the decision.