Procedural History of the Present Complaints
On July 7, 2000, Complainant filed C.00-07-012 and C.00-07-015. On August 21, 2000, Pacific filed separate answers to both complaints.
On September 5, 2000, Complainant filed a Motion To Exclude and Disregard Bell's Response on the ground that Pacific filed its answers two days late. In an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling dated October 18, 2000, the motion was denied since the 30th day for filing the answer fell on a Saturday and Pacific timely filed the first business day thereafter.1
In the October ruling, the ALJ also consolidated C.00-07-012 and C.00-07-015 and directed Complainant to file a statement addressing why the Commission should not:
· dismiss both complaints with prejudice;
· find Complainant and/or Richard Beagle in violation of Rule 1;
· impose monetary sanctions if a Rule 1 violation is found; and/or
· require Complainant and/or Richard Beagle to post a monetary deposit to cover defendant's legal expenses in any future complaints.
On November 1, 2000, Complainant filed a response to the October ALJ ruling.
1 Under Rule 3.2 (Computation of Time), when a Commission rule sets a time limit for performance of an act, and the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday when the Commission offices are closed, the time limit is extended to the include the first day thereafter.
