II. Background

Respondent applied for a household goods carrier permit on March 21, 2002, on August 27, 2002, and most recently on February 27, 2004. The Commission's License Section denied the first two applications on August 2, 2002, and February 20, 2003, respectively, for failure to file evidence of public liability, cargo and workers' compensation insurance coverage, failure to supply required documents, and failure to successfully complete the required MAX 4 examination. License Section notified Respondent on March 15, 2004, and again on April 14, 2004, that her third, pending application cannot be processed, and may be denied, for the same reasons that the first two applications were denied.

Meanwhile, on February 18, 2004, the Commission filed a complaint against Respondent in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that Respondent:

· Violated Pub. Util. Code § 5314.5¹ by advertising and holding out to the public that it is in operation as a household goods carrier, without a valid permit;

· Violated Pub. Util. Code §§ 5139 and 5161 by failing to procure, maintain and file proof of adequate liability protection and cargo insurance while conducting operations as a household goods carrier;

· Violated Pub. Util. Code § 5135.5 by failing to procure, maintain and file proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage while conducting operations as a household goods carrier;

· Violated Pub. Util. Code § 5133 by conducting operations as a household goods carrier without a permit; and

· Violated Pub. Util. Code §§ 5135 and 5139, and Item 88 of MAX 4, by falsely displaying another household goods carrier's permit, and by falsely displaying the Better Business Bureau logo, in its advertising.

The complaint sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and civil penalties. The court issued a temporary restraining order on March 11, 2004, and a preliminary injunction on April 12, 2004, barring Respondent from operating without a license and removing, without prejudice, the Commission's request for monetary fines and sanctions from the court calendar.

On July 8, 2004, the Commission instituted this investigation into Respondent's operations and practices. The OII directed Respondent to show cause why her pending application for a household goods carrier permit under Pub. Util. Code § 5135 should not be denied for cause and lack of fitness in view of the alleged violations listed above, and in view of the alleged continuation of those violations since the court issued the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. In addition, the OII indicated the Commission would consider whether to impose fines for such violations.