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
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
ACI Was Under Investigation for Consumer Misrepresentation
Within the Meaning of Question 7 88
ACI Had Not Filed for Bankruptcy Within the Meaning of Question 7 1010
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
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
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.