Background and Procedural History

Federation is licensed as a household goods carrier. Green is the Qualifying Employee for the corporation under the Commission's licensing procedure. Federation has engaged in the business of moving used household goods since we granted its current operating authority on September 10, 1998. Previously, the company was operated as a partnership in which Green was one of the two partners.

On May 18, 2000, we issued an Order Instituting Investigation and Order to Show Cause (OII) in response to declarations filed by William C. Waldorf and Christy Jackman, investigators with our Consumer Services Division (CSD) staff, that indicated Federation and Green may have violated:

1. Pub. Util. Code § 5314.5 by advertising and holding out to the public that they are in operation as a household goods carrier, without a valid permit issued under Chapter 7 of the Pub. Util. Code.

2. Pub. Util. Code § 5139 and General Order (GO) 100-M by failing to procure, and to continue on file and in effect while conducting operations as a household goods carrier, adequate protection against liability, as imposed by law upon carriers.

3. Pub. Util. Code § 5286 by conducting operations as a household goods carrier after the suspension and revocation of their permit.

4. Pub. Util. Code § 5135 by failing to divulge to the Commission the criminal record and two counts of felony conviction of the Chief Executive Officer of Federation Moving Services, Inc.

5. Pub. Util. Code § 5139 by failing to furnish to each prospective shipper a copy of the information specified in Item 470 of Maximum Rate Tariff (MAX) 4, in violation of Item 88 of MAX 4.

6. Pub. Util. Code § 5245 by charging in excess of the maximum allowable charge on estimated services, and failing to issue a change order for increased charges in violation of Items 108 and 120 of MAX 4.

7. Pub. Util. Code § 5139 by failing to show required information, including a Not To Exceed Price, on its shipping documents in violation of Items 128 and 132 of MAX 4.

8. Pub. Util. Code § 5139, and Item 92 of MAX 4, by failing to acknowledge and process loss and damage claims in a timely manner.

9. Pub. Util. Code § 5139 by permitting drivers, helpers, or packers who were not adequately supervised to work, in violation of GO 142.

Our Order initiated a formal investigation of these alleged violations and directed an administrative law judge (ALJ) to hold a hearing expeditiously at a time and date to be set at the prehearing conference (PHC). The OII ordered the respondents to appear and show cause why Federation's permit should not be revoked in view of these alleged violations. The OII was personally served on Green on May 25, 2000.

On June 21, 2000, ALJ Ryerson, the assigned ALJ, convened a PHC pursuant to a notice served June 9. The respondents failed to appear. The ALJ noted for the record that Green had contacted him by telephone late in the preceding afternoon and reported that he had hurt his back. ALJ Ryerson directed Green to talk to counsel for CSD, who reported at the PHC that Green had referred him to an attorney, with inconclusive results. In light of the uncertainty of Green's representation or intentions with respect to the OII, the ALJ continued the PHC for two weeks.

Following the PHC, ALJ Ryerson immediately wrote a letter to Green notifying him of the continued date and time of the PHC, and further advising him that he would either have to attend by representative or in person. The letter further advised Green that if he intended to represent himself he would have to do so in person unless he furnished a timely letter from a doctor indicating that he would be unable to do so. In the event that he could not attend personally, the ALJ indicated that he would have to do so by telephone.

The respondent failed to appear either in person or by representative at the continued PHC on July 5, 2000. The ALJ set an evidentiary hearing (EH) for July 18. The EH convened at the noticed date and time after written notice was mailed to the respondent. The EH concluded after one full hearing day. The respondent again failed to appear, but the ALJ permitted CSD to put on its case. After presenting the testimony of Waldorf and Jackman, CSD moved to have all of its exhibits received for the record. The ALJ took the motion under submission, having advised CSD's counsel that irrelevant, cumulative, and prejudicial matter would not be received in evidence.

On July 31, the ALJ issued a Ruling that addressed matters pending at the conclusion of the EH, including the admission of exhibits. The Ruling established a briefing schedule and the submission date, and identified the exhibits, or portions thereof, which were admitted for the record. In response, CSD filed a motion on August 18 requesting interlocutory review of the ALJ's Ruling. CSD's motion seeks to have the Commission reconsider the Ruling and admit all of CSD's testimony and exhibits into evidence.

On August 21 CSD filed its brief in accordance with the briefing schedule established by the Ruling. No brief was filed by the respondents, and the proceeding was submitted on September 5, 2000, as specified in the Ruling.