Rule 13.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides an expedited process for certain consumer complaints against public utilities. This process is only available where the amount of money claimed does not exceed the jurisdictional amount for small claims court. The currently applicable limit is $5,000 per Code of Civil Procedure § 116.220(a)(1).

In this proceeding, the only financial remedy complainant seeks is: "Cash settlement to Kathleen Coakley for poor service, installation violations and bringing this case to the attention of the CPUC, total award to be determined in court, but over $6,500."

It is well-settled law that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to make an award of damages, such as that requested by complainant. (Marking Products, Inc. v. AT&T, D.01-01-044, at note 8 (2001).)

Because we cannot order the requested financial award, the issues remaining in this proceeding are eligible for resolution pursuant to the Expedited Complaint Process. That process would allow for a more efficient resolution of the remaining issues presented by this complaint.

Therefore, this proceeding will be re-docketed and processed pursuant to the Expedited Complaint Process. The hearing required by Rule 13(d) shall be held:


Tuesday, April 3, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Commission Hearing Room
State Office Building
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

IT IS SO RULED.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge's Ruling on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.

Dated March 5, 2001, at San Francisco, California.

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to insure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Commission's policy is to schedule hearings (meetings, workshops, etc.) in locations that are accessible to people with disabilities. To verify that a particular location is accessible, call: Calendar Clerk (415) 703-1203.

If specialized accommodations for the disabled are needed, e.g., sign language interpreters, those making the arrangements must call the Public Advisor at (415) 703-2074 or TTY# 1-866-836-7825 or (415) 703-5282 at least three working days in advance of the event.

From: Kathleen Casey-Coakley [mailto:kcpaloalto@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 6:17 PM

To: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov; raw@cpuc.ca.gov; mab@cpuc.ca.gov

Cc: kcpaloalto@yahoo.com

Subject: Formal Complaint #C.00-12-003; request for Sept 2001

DEAR PUBLIC ADVISOR, Ms. White and AJL Bushey:

COAKLEY vs PACIFIC BELL Case No. 00-12-003

The (Preliminary) FORMAL RESPONSE IS BELOW, this is a

cover letter:

Please accept this as I am out of the country, I will

be faxing and mailing an original response.

As Complainant: This is a preliminary document, which

I would like the CPUC to consider re-scheduling for

September 2001 (Pre-hearing and Formal hearing in the

same month.)

My reasons are addressed to PACIFIC BELL and the CPUC

below, in my response to PACIFIC BELL's answer to my

complaint. There was a family death (Oct) and a

current serious family illness.

In December I was requesting the CPUC scheduling this

Pre-hearing for the 1st of February, and found myself

in need to travel outside the USA. Just after that

date with no time to reply to PACIFIC BELL's answer to

the Complaint.

I do find CPUC the web site very useful, when

attempting to keep informed of procedures and on track

with what the CPUC needs, though I am not sure I have

read everything. I will continue to read all the

documents on the web. I have had some troubles

printing all the documents and have written to the web

master.

Please let me know if you can reschedule, or if these

preliminary documents will be authorized.

I do appreciate your help in this procedure, which

seems very complex to me, but I am learning.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Coakley

FORMAL COMPLAINT RESPONSE BELOW:

_______________________________________________________

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

___________________________________________

Kathleen Coakley,

Complainant,

vs. Case No.

00-12-003

Pacific Bell Telephone Company,

Defendant.

__________________________________________

Preliminary Copy!!!! original to be FAXED and mailed

KATHLEEN COAKLEY RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

ANSWER

Ms. Kathleen Coakley ("COAKLEY"), a fourth

generation Californian whose address is Post Office

Box

598, Palo Alto, California 94302, files this Response

to

Defendant filed with the California Public Utilities

Commission ("CPUC").

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("PACIFIC")

stated every issue raised had been previous litigated

and resolved, these facts are not correct. SEE

("PLEASE

NOTE incorrect fact:")

COAKLEY and PACIFIC in April 1998 had a previous

confidential settlement in regards to the behavior of

several PACIFIC employees professional code of ethics.

PLEASE NOTE incorrect fact by PACIFIC EXHIBIT 1

letter:

Though to be specific and not break confidential

agreements in regards to Pacific's Answer EXHIBIT 1;

and

the (questionable) quote "Pacific Bell technician

provided you with an estimate", the most conflicting

INCORRECT information in this letter was, the EXHIBIT

1

letter mentions November 1998, when it was November

1997

when COAKLEY was first in small claims court against

PACIFIC, the letter was dated February 1998 by Ms.

Danyel Spear a PACIFIC manager.

In March 1998, COAKLEY wrote a fax to PACIFIC, CEO, Ed

Whitacre to stop any small claims court appeal against

award given to COAKLEY. Days later, COAKLEY received

a

message from PACIFIC, Douglas Phason. COAKLEY returned

the call immediately and discussed COAKLEY's schedule

at

work and frequent time off meetings waiting for

PACIFIC

employees had been and was affecting COAKLEY's time at

work, and she would settle immediately the small

claims

case #1997009313; if PACIFIC installed a "ISDN

Computer

line, and previous business lines and paid expenses".

This would save COAKLEY's time and PACIFIC's time.

After APRIL 3, 1998; COAKLEY began a "new process"

with

PACIFIC employee, Douglas Phason. After APRIL 3,

1998;

all the same problems seen in 1996 seem to reappear

with

the installation of the new request for "ISDN

Computer"

line in 1998.

PLEASE NOTE: In 1996, COAKLEY was one of the first

phase

clients in Palo Alto to request a ISDN Computer line.

ISDN lines were difficult to get and there was a long

waiting period. Pacific had given away the ISDN line

number that had been assign to COAKLEY, even after

AT&T

called PACIFIC service to remove apparatus cabinet and

correctly install ISDN computer line.

After April 3, 1998, COAKLEY requested again through

PACIFIC Douglas Phason an ISDN line for a home

business

project that was under deadline, the COAKLEY ISDN home

equipment had already been purchased by COAKLEY

business

in 1996, but COAKLEY telephoned in1998 a NEW request

for

PACIFIC BELL to install (again) the much needed ISDN

line, which was offered by PACIFIC Douglas Phason with

a

deadline in October 1998/1999.

In the beginning of this NEW PACIFIC request which

started April 3rd 1998, COAKLEY had no complaints to

do

with BEHAVIOR, until later, in the years to follow.

COAKLEY has been waiting for an ISDN line from April

3,

1998 to December 15, 2000. Several missed

appointments,

PACIFIC employees jumping the COAKLEY roofs without

notice and jumping of fences in the years 1998/1999/

2000, after COAKLEY made several requests for 24 hour

notification of appointments by PACIFIC service people

to PACIFIC management and the Emerson neighbors.

In the year 2000, there were PACIFIC "DSL Computer"

lines installed for all the neighboring Emerson

residents free of charge by PACIFIC, but COAKLEY

needed

an ISDN Computer line hook up for computer laboratory

security which the equipment had already been

purchased.

UNTIL April 1998, I had not met or even knew of

PACIFIC

employees, Mr. Marc Besse and Mr. Leon Smallrey, I

have

since made agreements in handwriting with these

PACIFIC

employees, the neighbors and the property manager,

Steve

Klee ("KLEE") regarding the installation of "ISDN

lines

and re-installation of telephone lines to code".

PLEASE NOTE incorrect fact by PACIFIC in statements

and

in letters: KLEE is NOT the property owner at 1436

Emerson street, Palo Alto, CA; he was the property

manager. KLEE and the property owner of 1436 Emerson

street, Mrs. Judith Gibson had authorized COAKLEY to

be

the telephone liaison at the Emerson street properties

in question.

PLEASE NOTE incorrect fact by PACIFIC Answer Exhibit

letters: The Emerson properties mention are NOT

apartments, they are single family residential houses.

After April 1998, COAKLEY drew a mechanical drawing

specification and preliminary layout of telephone

lines

agreed upon and to be authorized by PACIFIC, before

installation of excessive mechanical requests were

constructed "so ISDN Computer lines could be

installed"

as requested by service people.

Promises made by PACIFIC employees since April 1, 1998

and their professional behavior are in debate and very

similar to the behavior of a 1998 confidential

statement

COAKLEY has signed.

Still to this day the PACIFIC installation request for

ISDN has not been filled. COAKLEY takes the CPUC

Formal

complaint seriously and found no results satisfactory

with PACIFIC. See the seven letters in regards to

attached COAKLEY's December 1, 2000; CPUC Formal

Complaint; letters all dated after April 1, 1998.

COAKLEY has made a previous statement about the usage

of the word "MOOT" and would like to see PACIFIC's

definition for the word moot, and believes this

statement is incorrect to this CPUC formal Complaint

as

per definition below from Webster's dictionary:

MOOT =

to propose for discussion: vi. to argue or plead on a

supposed case; n. a discussion on a supposed case;

adj..

subject or open for discussion or debate.

MOOT COURT =

a mock court in which law students try imaginary cases

for practice.

II. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SB960 REQUIREMENTS

At least PACIFIC and COAKLEY agree on "adjudicatory"

category for a pre-hearing. COAKLEY is requesting to

change proposed schedule, because the date of February

1, 2001 has pasted; COAKLEY is requesting a change in

the pre-hearing and formal hearing schedule to be

after

the 15th of September 2001 for family reasons and

business travel. COAKLEY is requesting a pre-hearing

and the formal hearing to be completed in September

2001

because there has been a death in the family and a

serious illness hampering my scheduling and

international air travel. I had scheduled both

hearings

for February 1, 2001, but that deadline has pasted.

The factual matter in dispute is still "NO ISDN

Computer

line at 1436 Emerson, unlawful entry without

notification or written notice after entry."

III. RESPONSE TO MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS

1. COAKLEY states that PACIFIC did not notify COAKLEY

very time service employees were going to arrive at

1436

Emerson street, PACIFIC did not send approval of

agreements that were made and requested be confirmed

in

writing by mail to P.O. Box 598, Palo Alto, CA 94302.

COAKLEY requested communication in writing "only

after"

PACIFIC employees refused promises made over the

telephone to COAKLEY, or to give full names over the

telephone, or their employee numbers for tracking

purposes, so COAKLEY requested only correspondence in

writing. COAKLEY used a cell telephone in over

abundance

to get information on the current PACIFIC/COAKLEY work

status for the installation of the ISDN computer line.

COAKLEY telephoned because her work schedule did not

always permit formal letter writing.

2. COAKLEY accepts that PACIFIC CEO, Ed Whitacre is

not

the defendant; but was told at the CPUC public

advisor's

desk that COAKLEY needed to address complaint to the

President of PACIFIC, so COAKLEY needed to go to

public

library to find this information out, and address it

so.

3. COAKLEY never had an ISDN computer line hook-up at

1436 Emerson street; after making several different

appeals to PACIFIC offices at 140 New Montgomery

street,

San Francisco, Ca 94106; Mountain View, California;

and

Oakland, California. There were break-ins to the 1436

Emerson property without notification, with proof of

PACIFIC employees entry.

If the statements COAKLEY made are unintelligible,

COAKLEY found PACIFIC employees' actions particularly

unbelievabley unprofessional, unnerving and very

risky,

but very much truly misleading. Even after several

COAKLEY/PACIFIC discussions and letters requesting

follow-up procedures to require a written notice of

the

presence of a PACIFIC employees at 1436 Emerson

street,

Palo Alto, CA, no notice was given.

4. COAKLEY's relief sought was for the benefit of the

State of California's "computer users/PACIFIC

Customers"

and the basic security of California residents. A

request to have the CPUC make it maditory for PACIFIC

employees to give their employee numbers over the

telephone for PUBLIC SERVICE RECORDS and as a tracking

device for PACIFIC management/customer to make

comments

regarding employees, leave calling card with

statements

that employees were on the premises has been a COAKLEY

suggestion, now Coakley would like to make it a

professional fact necessary for the safety of

residents

working with utilities.

Also have the CPUC make Pacific offenses easy to

access

and available as public records, if successful formal

complaint Complainant requests to be a part of the

public record, using the CPUC WEBsite as a search

tool.

(Comment for CPUC: Excellent CPUC website as of to

date,

but more documents needed on file!) Make it legal for

a

customer to video tape a PACIFIC technical person's

work

and comments they make during installation, commenting

as to whether their or previous work is to CPUC code.

_________________________________________________________________________

RESPONSE TO FIRST SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

This is a NEW formal complaint made in December 2000

by

COAKLEY and very similar to an earlier settlement

made;

but very different in evidence.

COAKLEY is NOT barred to make comments on current

complaints and PACIFIC work after April 3, 1998.

RESPONSE TO SECOND SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

No ISDN computer hook up line was ever installed at

1436

Emerson and should have been by request and promises

made by PACIFIC after April 1998.

RESPONSE TO THIRD SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PACIFIC did nothing for COAKLEY whom requested a ISDN

Computer line, in letters, in faxes, in telephone

calls,

in drawings.

RESPONSE TO FOURTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Failure to meet California's general code oder #95 (I

have no ISDN Computer line), poor service/missed

appointments and advertising to the public regarding

the

benefits of PACIFIC in keeping their appointments at

$500.00 for every missed appointment, bringing the

case

to the attention of CPUC a total award to be

determined

at the CPUC formal hearing, estimated at over $6,500.

COAKLEY has been injured in her home life and business

beyond comparison to anyone she knows. It would be

satisfaction for the public knowledge and the self

satisfaction that a single person with a PACIFIC

complaint can matter in the eyes of the CPUC, and be

heard in a open formal complaint hearing. Though

PACIFIC

has closed the COAKLEY vs PACIFIC CPUC hearing;

hopefully in two years from now, people will be aware

that PACIFIC employees can not jump fences and feel

justified, if they feel like it. Type of damages and

injuries made to COAKLEY will be address in a civil

court with a jury, COAKLEY is still facing

difficulties

because of PACIFIC.

RESPONSE TO FIFTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

COAKLEY is not making false statements.

RESPONSE TO SIXTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

COAKLEY made this plea to "not waste time with PACIFIC

in March 1998", when faxing PACIFIC CEO, Ed Whitacre

and

discussing her needs with PACIFIC's Douglas Phason.

RESPONSE TO SEVENTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

COAKLEY does not want $6,500. in damages, from the

CPUC

formal hearing. COAKLEY wants the CPUC to know that

the

CPUC should "fine PACIFIC for their poor services,

payable to the Californians who are mislead".

RESPONSE TO EIGHTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

COAKLEY statement states that PACIFIC required

employees

to perform job duties as follows, without care.

PACIFIC

employees did not act alone, they acted with

management's consent.

RESPONSE TO NINTH SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

COAKLEY was still making a requested for ISDN Computer

Line in December 2000; two years from that date will

be

the Statute of Limitations.

SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW

_______________________________________________________________________

Dated on the Internet, Pacific Standard Time, this

23rd

day of February 2001 at 6:20pm.

Kathleen Coakley

By:

______________________________________________________

Kathleen Coakley

P.O. Box 598

Palo Alto, CA 94302

________________________________________________________________________

VERIFICATION

I am the complainant in the above-entitled matter;

the statements in the foregoing document are true of

my

knowledge, except as to matters which are therein

stated

on information and belief and as to those matters, I

believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is

true and correct.

Executed on February 23, 2001 on the internet.

___________________________________________________

Kathleen Coakley; Complainant

_______________________________________________________________________

Service List C00.00-12-003

Ms. Kathleen Coakley

P.O. Box 598

Palo Alto, CA 94302

ALJ Maribeth A. Bushey

California PUC

505 Van Ness Ave, Room 5018

San Francisco, CA 94102

Commr. Carl Wood

California PUC

505 Van Ness Ave, Room 5200

San Francisco, CA 94102

Michelle Galbraith

Pacific Bell Telephone Co

140 New Montgomery Street, Room 1519

San Francisco, CA 94105

__________________________________________________

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page