2. Background
2.1. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
On October 7, 2004, Verizon California Inc.'s (Verizon) filed a complaint seeking to acquire, by eminent domain, rights of way and easements in five miles of Summit Road in Santa Clara County.1 Verizon also sought prejudgment possession of the property. Certain of the landowners opposed the proposed acquisition and prejudgment possession.
Numerous procedural events ensued, leading up to an August 22, 2007, decision of the Superior Court.2 The procedural history of this matter is recounted in the decision and covers 10 pages.
Substantively, the court's decision held that prior to exercising the right of eminent domain, Verizon must comply with Pub. Util. Code § 6253 and obtain an order of this Commission determining that the proposed condemnation would serve the public interest.
2.2. California Public Utilities Commission
On November 28, 2007, Verizon filed this complaint to condemn easements in certain property of the defendant property owners. The property is a five-mile stretch of Summit Drive located in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties. The complaint is brought pursuant to § 625, which authorizes a public utility offering competitive services to condemn private property for the purpose of offering those utility services only if the Commission finds that the condemnation would serve the public interest. Verizon stated in its verified complaint that it served the complaint by mail on certain defendants and known counsel. Verizon subsequently amended its certificate of service to show direct service of additional defendants.
On December 3, 2007, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the assigned Commissioner issued their ruling containing instructions to answer, setting the date for filing responses to the motion for summary judgment, noticing the prehearing conference and evidentiary hearings, setting the schedule for distributing written direct testimony, designating ALJ Maribeth A. Bushey the presiding officer, and adopting the scoping memo. The Ruling, hereafter referred to as the "scoping memo, is reproduced in Attachment A to today's decision.
The parties distributed direct testimony prior to the hearings, which were held in Gilroy, California, before the Presiding Officer.
As shown in the List of Defendants (Attachment B), 38 of the 71 defendants appeared at the hearing to oppose the proposed condemnation. These defendants were jointly represented by one attorney. They will be referred to in today's decision as the Opposing Defendants. Thirty-two of the defendants did not appear, and one defendant appeared in support of the proposed condemnation.
Opening and reply briefs were filed by Verizon and the Opposing Defendants. The other defendants did not file briefs.
On March 24, 2008, the Presiding Officer issued her Decision Finding That Proposed Condemnation Would Serve the Public Interest.
The Opposing Defendants appealed the Presiding Officer's Decision on April 23, 2008. Verizon responded in opposition to the appeal on May 8, 2008. As described in Section 7 below, the appeal presented no basis for substantive alteration of the Presiding Officer's Decision and we make no such alterations.
1 Verizon California Inc. v. Carrick et al., Case 1-04-CV028324.
2 Tentative Statement of Decision on Bifurcated Issue of Applicability of Public Utility Code Section 625, Verizon California Inc. v. Carrick et al., Case 1-04-CV028324 (August 22, 2007).
3 All references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.
