STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
November 20, 2008
TO PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 08-05-037,
DECISION 08-11-039, MAILED NOVEMBER 20, 2008.
On October 20, 2008, a Presiding Officer's Decision in this proceeding was mailed to all parties. Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2 and Rule 15.5(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures provide that the Presiding Officer's Decision becomes the decision of the Commission 30 days after its mailing unless an appeal to the Commission or a request for review has been filed.
No timely appeals to the Commission or requests for review have been filed. Therefore, the Presiding Officer's Decision is now the decision of the Commission.
The decision number is shown above.
/s/ PHILIP SCOTT WEISMEHL for ANGELA K. MINKIN
Angela K. Minkin, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
ANG:hkr
Attachment
ALJ/JAR-POD/hkr Date of Issuance 11/20/2008
Decision 08-11-039 November 20, 2008
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ross Robinson, Complainant, vs. AT&T Mobility, LLC, dba New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, fka Cingular Wireless and Related Entities (U3060C), Defendant. |
Case 08-05-037 (Filed May 28, 2008) |
Ross Robinson, in pro per, complainant.
David Discher, Attorney at Law, for AT&T Mobility, LLC, defendant.
Peter G. Fairchild, Attorney at Law, for the California Public Utilities Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division, interested party.
DECISION DENYING REQUEST FOR RESTORATION
OF TELEPHONE SERVICE
Ross Robinson, an individual doing business as (dba) Have Van-Will Travel, seeks restoration of a wireless telephone line following disconnection by AT&T Mobility, LLC, dba New Cingular Wireless, at the direction of the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The Commission finds that probable cause has been established to support the termination of the telephone service, and because we find no basis upon which to provide interim relief, we deny the request for restoration of service and deny the complaint.
1. Background
Investigations by the Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) revealed that, from May 2003 through February 27, 2008, Ross Robinson, an individual doing business as (dba) Have Van-Will Travel (Robinson or Complainant), held himself out to engage in the business of transporting household goods without holding a valid permit from the Commission authorizing him to do so. Robinson also falsely held himself out to the public as a licensed household goods carrier by displaying an invalid license number "CAL-T-116655" painted on the side of his truck in violation of Pub. Util. Code § 5314.5. CPSD further alleged that Robinson had been posting flyers in or around Alameda and San Francisco Counties offering unlawful moving services to the public.1 On April 20, 2007, Robinson signed an Official Notice which notified him that operating and advertising household goods moving services without a valid permit are violations of the Public Utilities Code, and continued violations might result in penalties. CPSD asserts that Robinson continues to violate the law, notwithstanding its directives to cease and desist. It notes that the violations uncovered are punishable as misdemeanors under provisions of the Public Utilities Code and the Business and Professions Code.2
Pursuant to the March 14, 2008 order of Superior Court Judge Vernon Nakahara, AT&T Mobility, LLC, dba New Cingular Wireless (AT&T Mobility), disconnected a (510) area code telephone number used by Complainant, dba Have Van-Will Travel. The court, acting on an affidavit prepared by the CPSD, found probable cause to believe that Robinson's telephone line was being used as an instrumentality to violate the law, and that this presented a significant danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. In this complaint, Robinson seeks reconnection of the telephone line pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5322.
Section 5322 requires disconnecting service to an existing customer upon receipt of a writing from any authorized official of the Commission,3 signed by a magistrate, finding that there is probable cause to believe that the customer:
is advertising or holding out to the public to perform, or is performing, household goods carrier services without having in force a permit issued by the commission authorizing those services, or that the telephone service otherwise is being used or is to be used as an instrumentality, directly or indirectly, to violate or to assist in violation of the laws requiring a household goods carrier permit.
Section 5322 specifies that a magistrate must find that, absent immediate and summary action, a danger to public welfare or safety will result.
Under § 5322, a disconnected subscriber may file a complaint with the Commission seeking restoration of service. The Commission is required to schedule a hearing on the complaint within 214 days, and to serve notice on the concerned law enforcement agency. At hearing, the law enforcement agency has the burden of proving that the disconnection of service was based on probable cause, and that service should not be restored.
The hearing in this case took place in the Commission's San Francisco courtroom on June 20, 2008. Complainant testified and cross-examined the sole witness tendered by CPSD. CPSD not only presented one of its investigators as the primary witness, but also identified and moved 17 exhibits into the record. AT&T Mobility identified and moved two exhibits into the record. The matter was submitted on June 20, 2008.
1 These written advertisements contained two telephone numbers: (510) 451-5000 and (510) 613-9913 (a wireless phone and a pager, respectively). Since paging services are not included in the definition of a "public utility" telephone corporation, pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 234(b)(2), and are not within the direct intrastate jurisdiction of the Commission, the pager was not included as a number subject to disconnection. Exhibit (Exh) 16 at p. 1 (Affidavit Supporting Probable Cause Finding) (June 20, 2008).
2 Specifically, Pub. Util. Code §§ 5133, 5314.5, 5139, 5161, Commission General Order (GO) 100-M, GO 136-C, Item 88 of the Commission's MAX 4 Tariff applicable to household goods carriers, and Business and Profession Code Section 17500.
3 After it is shown that other available enforcement remedies of the Commission have failed to terminate unlawful activities detrimental to the public welfare and safety.
4 Specifically, the hearing must be held within 21 calendar days of the filing and assignment of a docket number to the complaint.
