Word Document PDF Document

ALJ/JLG/MOD-POD/hkr Mailed 2/4/2003

Decision 03-01-079 January 30, 2003

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Investigation on the Commission's own Motion and Order to Show Cause into the operations, practices and conduct of Titan Telecommunications, Inc. (U-6224), and Christopher Bucci, its President and owner,

Respondents.

Investigation 01-03-021

(Filed March 15, 2001)

    J. Geoffrey Barry, Attorney at Law, for Titan Telecommunications, Inc. and Christopher Bucci, respondents.

    Carol Dumond, Attorney at Law, for Consumer Protection and Safety Division.

OPINION REVOKING TITAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INC.'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
BUT FINDING RESPONDENTS NOT LIABLE FOR
RESTITUTION ORDERED IN DECISION 00-04-012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION REVOKING TITAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
BUT FINDING RESPONDENTS NOT LIABLE FOR RESTITUTION
ORDERED IN DECISION 00-04-012
22

Summary 22

Background 22

CPSD's Support for Rule 1 Allegations 44

Respondents' Reply to Rule 1 Allegations 66

Legal Standard for Finding a Rule 1 Violation 77

Respondents Violated Rule 1 in Answering Question 7 88

Respondents Violated Rule 1 in Answering Question 8 1111

Respondent Is Unfit to Conduct Business in California 1313

CPSD's Support for Alter Ego Allegations 1414

Respondents' Reply to Alter Ego Allegations 1515

Legal Standard Governing Application of the Alter Ego Doctrine
to Bucci and Titan
1515

Remedies and Fines 1919

Appeal 2525

Assignment of Proceeding 2727

Findings of Fact 2828

Conclusions of Law 3030

ORDER 3131

OPINION REVOKING TITAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INC.'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
BUT FINDING RESPONDENTS NOT LIABLE FOR
RESTITUTION ORDERED IN DECISION 00-04-012

Summary

We revoke Titan Telecommunications, Inc.'s (Titan) certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) and fine Titan $35,000 after finding that Titan and Christopher Bucci, its sole shareholder and president, (Respondents) violated Rule 1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure by misleading the Commission in Titan's application for a CPCN filed with the Commission on July 19, 1999. Respondents failed to disclose in that application pending investigations concerning consumer misrepresentation that resulted from slamming allegations against Bucci's prior company, ACI Communications Inc. (ACI), and a state regulatory sanction against Bucci.

We find that Respondents are not liable for the restitution ordered against ACI in Decision (D.) 00-04-012 after determining that the alter ego doctrine cannot be applied to Bucci and Titan so as to hold them liable for ACI's misconduct. To hold Bucci personally liable for the restitution ordered by the Commission against ACI when Bucci was not named a respondent in that proceeding, would violate his due process rights. Titan similarly did not participate in the ACI investigation and cannot be held liable.

Top Of PageNext PageGo To First Page