Discussion

The issue in C.00-07-012 is whether funds held on deposit were improperly distributed to Pacific in C.99-03-016. In D.99-10-051, the Commission decided C.99-03-016 in favor of Pacific.⁴ In D.00-03-022, the Commission denied Complainant's Application For Rehearing of D.99-10-051.

However, neither D.99-10-051 nor D.00-03-022 ordered the release of funds held on deposit to Pacific. In complaint cases, the release of funds held on deposit follows the resolution of liability in the underlying complaint case. D.00-05-030, a half-page order, corrected this oversight and ordered the release of funds held on deposit in C.99-03-016 to Pacific. If Complainant believed that D.00-05-030 contained an error, she should have filed an application for rehearing of D.00-05-030. Instead, Complainant initiated this complaint. Complainant argues that the ALJ who drafted D.00-05-030 "violate[d] CPUC rules and her position by illegally reopening or altering the case without hearing and passing money in direct opposition of CPUC orders and rules." (See page 1 of Attachment E to C.00-07-012.) The complaint goes further to accuse the ALJ of violating the Commission's code of ethics and Pacific of committing criminal acts. Complainant cites no facts to support any of her allegations.

Complainant fails to understand that since the Commission found in favor of Pacific in C.99-03-016, the funds deposited by Complainant should have been released to Pacific. The oversight does not extinguish Complainant's debt to Pacific. This oversight was corrected in D.00-05-030. Thus, Complainant fails to state a cause of action in C.00-07-012.⁵

The issue in C.00-07-015 is whether Complainant's debt to Pacific is extinguished because Pacific mailed its request for payment to a wrong address. Complainant states that Pacific "MUST bill and account for every charge, date, number and address, before it can collect and bills must be submitted CORRECTLY to the PROPER ADDRESS, and in a TIMELY MANNER." (See page 2 of Attachment E to C.00-07-015.) (Emphasis in complaint.) Complainant cites no statute or Commission order or rule to support the proposition that the mailing of a bill to a wrong address extinguishes a debt owed. Pacific has responded to Complainant's concerns. (See Exhibit 3 to C.00-07-015. A copy of this exhibit, which is a letter from Pacific to Complainant outlining Pacific's response and bearing Complainant's annotations, is attached to today's decision.) It also appears that some funds held on deposit were not released to Pacific. It is not clear whether these funds are the same as the funds held on deposit in C.99-03-016. In Exhibit 3 to C.00-07-015, appears the handwritten remark "wrong billing = no billing = send me" money. To the extent that Complainant believes that an oversight extinguishes her debt, Complainant is wrong.

The Commission on its own motion may dismiss complaints when a complaint fails to establish the facts, applicable law, and jurisdiction justifying a hearing. A hearing can be justified if the matters to be proven are understood, if there is sufficient and comprehensible indication that the allegations are based on fact, not mere conclusory accusations, and if the allegations are sustainable under some theory of law. The Commission has the inherent power to deal with sham, frivolous, or vexatious causes of action, or to dismiss filings that are not done in good faith or that are in disregard of established procedural requirements, or otherwise violative of orderly judicial administration. (Westcom Long Distance, Inc. v. Pacific Bell, 54 CPUC2d 244.) The Commission may look behind the pleadings and evasive language to ascertain the existence or absence of triable issues. (Abeloe v. Spreckels Water Company, Inc., 58 CPUC2d 613.)

In both complaints, Complainant has not made a coherent statement of facts that, if found to be true, would support a conclusion that a violation of law, Commission order or rule has occurred. We also find that both complaints are frivolous and vexatious, and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice. To the extent that Complainant has funds on deposit at the Commission in connection with C.00-07-012 and C.00-07-015, or with C.99-03-016, these funds should be distributed to Pacific because we are dismissing both current complaints with prejudice, and have resolved the prior complaint.

The last issue we address is whether Complainant has violated Rule 1, which provides that any person who signs a pleading or transacts business with the Commission agrees to "maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges..."

In D.00-03-022, we noted that "Applicant's behavior and filings in this proceeding would indeed support the conclusion that she is indeed a `vexatious litigant' no matter how many previous filings she may have made." Further, in D.00-03-022 we observed that:

"Application for Rehearing, together with other filings made by Ms. Beagle and her former husband, are nothing more than a long litany of groundless, malicious complaints against ALJ Vieth and Pacific. Applicant accuses the ALJ of `crimes,' without any substantiating facts. She accuses ALJ Vieth of `suppressing evidence' with no indication of what this evidence may have been. Likewise, Ms. Beagle accuses the ALJ of `intentionally mishandling justice,' `bias' and suborning perjury. Applicant cites no record evidence for any of these accusations, and a review of the record indicates that there is none." (Id. at p. 4.)

Consequently, in D.00-03-022, we advised Complainant of the Code of Ethics contained in Rule 1 and cautioned Complainant that her conduct had failed to maintain respect for the ALJ in charge of that proceeding.

In C.00-07-012, Complainant calls a Pacific employee inept; states that an ALJ has improperly passed money to Pacific; and accuses the Commission of "covering [Pacific Bell's employee's] stupidity of errors." C.00-07-015 makes similar derogatory statements and goes as far as to request an order for a psychological examination of a Pacific employee (page 4 of attachment G to complaint).

The October 18 ALJ ruling directed Complainant and her representative to show cause why the Commission should not impose sanctions for a violation of Rule 1. In response, Complainant persisted with character attacks on the ALJ. We find that Complainant's and her representative's conduct in repeatedly attacking the character of ALJs violates Rule 1. We conclude that given prior warnings, a basis exists to temporarily bar Complainant and her representative from filing any complaints. However, we will refrain from imposing such a sanction at this time. Should Complainant and/or her representative in the future file a frivolous complaint, the Commission will consider barring Complainant and/or representative from filing future complaints.