B. Background

This is another in a series of disputes between two airport shuttle operators competing for business in Sonoma County. The conflict started with

an application of Sonoma County Airport Express (Express or Defendant) to provide service throughout the City of Santa Rosa (City) and the Santa Rosa Airport, on the one hand, and the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), on the other hand. (Application (A.) 98-07-061.) This service was protested by Airporter Inc., d.b.a. Santa Rosa Airporter (Airporter or Complainant), which also filed a complaint alleging that Express was operating beyond the scope of its authority. (Case (C.) 98-08-044.) The City also protested Express' application for citywide authority. Both the application and complaint matter were resolved by separate stipulations between Express and Airporter and between Express and City. In D.99-02-068 the Commission accepted the stipulations, which basically granted the authority requested by Express, but required, inter alia, that service to Hotel La Rose be terminated by July 31, 1999. It is this provision incorporated in both stipulations and adopted in D.99-02-068 that is the crux of the present complaint of Airporter against Express.

Few facts are in contest. How these facts are to be interpreted, and whether or not there are mitigating circumstances for the admitted actions of Express, is hotly disputed. Following a Prehearing Conference on November 8, 1999 in Santa Rosa, the Commission held Evidentiary Hearings before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sheldon Rosenthal on December 6 and 10, 1999, in Santa Rosa. Complainant and Defendant timely filed opening briefs. Defendant filed a Reply Brief. The matter was submitted on February 11, 2000. (Defendant entitled its first brief "Defendant's Closing Brief." Since this was Defendant's first brief, it will be referred to as Defendant's "Opening Brief" or "OB" in this decision.)

Express has a complaint on file against Airporter (C.99-08-042). By fax dated February 7, 2000, and at what was to be an evidentiary hearing in C.99-08-042 on February 8, 2000, the parties announced a potential merger of the adversaries and asked for a continuance of both complaints. The ALJ denied continuance in the present case, where all of the evidence and briefs had been completed, but granted a continuance in C.99-08-042, Defendant's complaint against Complainant. While nothing has been offered for this record, Complainant has filed A.00-04-019 in which it states the proposed merger failed. We take official notice of the contents of this filing. (Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rule) 23.)