IV. Appeal of Presiding Officer's Decision
The presiding officer's decision (POD) was filed and served on the parties to this proceeding on August 25, 2006. CPSD and Sugarman8 appealed the POD. CPSD contended that the POD failed to make required findings of fact and conclusions of law on numerous CPSD allegations that, in CPSD's view, supported revocation of Mr. Move's operating authority. CPSD relied on the Muro, Malloy, Doctors, Jones, and Kay moves to support revocation.
Sugarman disputed many of the factual findings in the POD and sought reconsideration of his award such that he would be "fully compensated for his losses."
Mr. Move responded that both appeals fail to include sufficient citations to the record in support of the requested changes to the POD, and that the few record references by CPSD did not support the requested changes.
We have considered the appeals and are not persuaded that the POD is unlawful or erroneous. The intervening years since most of the moves referenced by CPSD and the improvement in Mr. Move's regulatory compliance undermine the asserted necessity to revoke Mr. Move's operating authority at this time.
Of the five moves referenced by CPSD, Muro, Malloy, and Jones occurred prior to the criminal court stipulation. Mr. Move has paid substantial compensation to each victim, its president served a jail sentence, and Mr. Move paid fines due to its conduct of these moves. Malloy's claim for $17,650 has been settled for $4,750 as discussed below, and Jones previously received over $25,000. The value of the extra moving services provided to Muro exceeded the claim.
The more recent moves also fail to justify revoking Mr. Move's operating authority. The Kay move was not jurisdictional. Mr. Move paid $1,500 in settlement but Kay seeks another $10,000. The Doctors move occurred recently, but the testimony does not support CPSD's interpretation that Ms. Doctors was taken in the truck against her will, nor does it support Ms. Doctors' request for $10,000 - $15,000 in compensation for inconvenience. These moves do not demonstrate that the POD unlawfully or erroneously failed to revoke Mr. Move's operating authority.
Sugarman's appeal reiterates his request for an award of full retail replacement price for all allegedly lost or damaged items. The POD analyzed this request, and Sugarman provides no citations showing the POD's analysis to be erroneous or unlawful. Consequently, we have no basis on which to alter the POD.
CPSD also provided a copy of the October 13, 2005, letter from Lena M. George with attachments which purported to itemize the damages Ms. George incurred from Mr. Move in contrast to the POD's determination that the damage claim was unsubstantiated. The two-page letter, however, lists various types of damages but does not include specific amounts for each. Copies of pages from several catalogues are also attached with certain items circled. The letter contains no tabulation of these amounts and simply concludes with "I would be willing at this time to accept a full and final settlement of fifteen thousand dollars." This letter and attachments is not consistent with our regulations for lost or damaged items, and does not show the POD's conclusions to be unlawful or erroneous.
In conclusion, no party has presented us with the showing required by Rule 14.4, namely that the POD is unlawful or erroneous. We, therefore, decline to make changes to the POD.
On October 12, 2006, Mr. Move filed a motion to reopen the record to accept a copy of Mr. Move's settlement with Malloy for $4,750. No party opposed the request and it is granted.
8 At the time of filing the appeal, Sugarman was not a formal party to the proceeding, having appeared only as a witness for CPSD. The appeal was therefore deemed a request for party status as well as an appeal and accepted for filing.
