Comments of Draft Decision
The draft decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______, and reply comments were filed on ______.
Findings of Fact
1. MFNS informed the Commission on January 25, 2002 that it did not desire to proceed further with this application. It requested that the Commission hold in abeyance and defer further processing of the application.
2. MFNS has taken no steps to pursue the application since that time, and has not requested that the Commission recommence processing of the application.
3. No party protested the application.
4. This proceeding has not moved forward to a critical point where it appears the applicant will receive a negative decision.
5. While the Commission has acted on and MFNS has pursued several other aspects of its California fiber optic project since filing this application, this application has essentially been in a holding pattern since its filing.
1. Where a party abandons a project that is the subject of an application to this Commission, it is appropriate in some cases to dismiss the application, either with or without prejudice.
2. While we have prohibited a party from abandoning an application where the proceeding has moved forward to a critical point and it appears the applicant will receive a negative decision, this is not one of those cases.
3. It is not appropriate to hold proceedings in abeyance indefinitely.
4. Because we are dismissing the application without prejudice, MFNS is free to refile its application should it decide to proceed with the Sacramento or San Diego aspects of its fiber optic project.
IT IS ORDERED that the application of Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. is dismissed without prejudice.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
Appendix A to Thomas Comment Dec
