V. Assignment of Proceeding

Michael R. Peevey is the Assigned Commissioner and Maribeth A. Bushey is the assigned ALJ and the presiding officer in this proceeding

Findings of Fact

1. On September 10, 2004, the Los Angles City Attorney's Office filed a stipulation to sentencing order in Los Angles Superior Court Criminal Case No. 3CR02706 with Mr. Move and Eli Galam. The stipulation provided for 36 months of probation, restitution to customers, penalty assessments, and observance by Mr. Move and Galam of all applicable laws. The City Attorney's office has been informed of the results of CPSD's investigation. Neither Mr. Move's or Galam's probation has been revoked.

2. Mr. Move denied receiving Lemus' damage claim but did not rebut the allegations.

3. The Rios documents Mr. Move provided to the credit card company had been altered from the copies given to Rios.

4. Rios testified persuasively that Mr. Move's workers completed the move in two hours and the hourly rate quoted was $75.

5. Mr. Move transported Muro's belongings to her new home in Oregon at no charge, and the value of those services exceeds Muro's claim against Mr. Move.

6. Mr. Move has settled Malloy's claim of loss and damages.

7. Mr. Move overcharged Parker, caused damages, and did not complete the job.

8. Mr. Move held Hogan's goods hostage.

9. George did not substantiate her loss and damage claim.

10. Mr. Move increased Sugarman's not to exceed price from $3,500 to $7,000 for the same services.

11. There are recent occasions when Mr. Move has failed to provide customers with capable help.

12. During two periods, Mr. Move conducted operations as a household goods carrier while its permit was suspended for failing to have filed proof of required insurance.

13. During the times Mr. Move's permit was suspended for failure to file proof of insurance, all required insurance was in effect but proof had not been timely filed with the Commission.

14. Mr. Move's crews failed on occasion to release goods upon payment of the not to exceed price, but these violations were not widespread or recent.

15. Insufficient evidence was presented to show that Mr. Move routinely offered estimates without viewing the goods to be moved.

16. Mr. Move conceded that it has failed on occasion to comply with documentation requirements, but it is committed to full and timely compliance.

17. Mr. Move has implemented a plan to improve its processing of loss and damage claims.

18. CPSD did not demonstrate that Mr. Move had failed to cross reference all listings under different names in a telephone directory.

19. On at least three occasions, Mr. Move failed to allow inspection of records required to be maintained by household goods carriers on request by Commission staff.

20. Mr. Move has made progress in bringing its operations into compliance with California law and Commission regulations.

21. Mr. Move conducts about 12,000 moves per year.

22. Mr. Move's gross annual revenues are about $2 million per year, with net revenues uncertain.

23. CPSD did not propose a specific fine but sought the "maximum penalty," which Mr. Move calculated to be $1,329,000.

24. The POD was mailed to parties on August 25, 2006.

25. CPSD and Sugarman filed appeals of the POD.

26. Mr. Move has resolved the Malloy damage claim.

Conclusions of Law

1. Mr. Move has on occasion violated the laws and regulations applicable to household goods carriers.

2. Mr. Move has offered substantial evidence in mitigation of its violations, including that it has successfully improved its compliance efforts and that virtually all of its 12,000 annual moves result in satisfied customers.

3. The Commission has authority to revoke Mr. Move's household goods carrier permit.

4. Revoking Mr. Move's permit would not be consistent with Commission precedent, and is not necessary at this time.

5. Mr. Move should be subjected to compliance monitoring by CPSD.

6. The purpose of fines is to deter future violations.

7. CPSD has not demonstrated that substantial fines are needed to provide deterrence above and beyond the criminal court stipulation.

8. Mr. Move's violations are not systemic but are serious to the affected customers.

9. The public interest requires that Mr. Move be subject to a fine of $16,000, with $12,000 suspended so long as Mr. Move remains in compliance with applicable law. The remaining amount should be paid in $1,000 installments at 90-day intervals.

10. As set forth in Attachment B, Mr. Move should make the following refunds to customers:

Lemus $400.00

Rios $75.00

Guarnieri $200.00

Parker $2,701.94

Sugarman $1,953.24

11. Mr. Move should be admonished for its past performance and directed to continue its improvement.

12. CPSD's and Sugarman's appeals of the POD failed to demonstrate that the POD was unlawful or erroneous; no changes should be made to the POD.

13. This decision should be effective immediately.

ORDER

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Move Moving & Storage, Inc., a California corporation, doing business as Load Rock N Roll Moving and Storage, Right Now Moving and Storage, Same Day Moving, Short Notice Moving and Storage, A All-American Relocation, Load Lock N Roll, Long Beach Security Storage, Mister Move, and its president, Eli Galam (Mr. Move) are assessed a fine of $16,000. So long as Mr. Move complies with the provisions of this decision and all other law and regulations, $12,000 of the fine is suspended. The remaining $4,000 shall be paid in $1,000 installments, with the first such payment due 90 days after the effective date of this order. The subsequent payments shall each be due at 90-day intervals. The payments shall be made to the California Public Utilities Commission for deposit to the General Fund, and remitted to the Commission's Fiscal Office at 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 3000, San Francisco, CA 94102. The number of this decision shall be included on the face of the check. Mr. Move's president shall bring proof of such payment(s) to the meeting with the Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) Director required below.

2. No later than 25 days after the effective date of this order Mr. Move shall make the following refunds and shall file and serve a compliance filing with CPSD so stating:

Lemus $400

Rios $75

Guarnieri $200

Parker $2,701.94

Sugarman $1,953.24

3. No later than 45 days after the effective date of this order, Mr. Move shall file and serve a compliance filing with CPSD showing that the Clark claim has been resolved consistent with applicable regulations.

4. The CPSD shall implement the following program of compliance monitoring of Mr. Move:

a. Complaint Resolution Review. No less than once each annual quarter, Mr. Move's president shall meet in person with the Director of CPSD, or the Director's designee, to review all pending complaints either to this Commission or the Better Business Bureau as well as all loss and damage claims submitted to Mr. Move. Such review shall include the facts of each complaint or claim, the actions taken to resolve it, and the timetable for final resolution. The Director of CPSD or the Director's designee shall set the time and place of the meeting and provide reasonable notice to Mr. Move.

b. CPSD Inspection. CPSD shall proactively conduct inspections of Mr. Move's real time operations, as well as review documentation.

c. Other actions as deemed necessary by the CPSD Director.

d. Completion of Monitoring. If after no less than four such meetings, the CPSD Director determines that Mr. Move is in compliance with applicable law and regulations, then no further meetings are required and monitoring ends. If the CPSD Director finds that Mr. Move is not in compliance, CPSD is authorized to file a motion to reopen this proceeding for the assessment of additional penalties. The CPSD Director may require additional meetings as necessary to determine whether Mr. Move is in compliance.

5. Mr. Move is admonished for past practices and directed to comply fully with all law and regulations applicable to household goods carriers.

6. Mr. Move's motion to reopen the record to accept a copy of Mr. Move's settlement agreement with Malloy is granted and the settlement agreement is made part of the record.

7. Investigation 05-04-019 is closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated November 30, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

                    President

GEOFFREY F. BROWN
DIAN M. GRUENEICH

JOHN A. BOHN

RACHELLE B. CHONG

Commissioners

Attachment A - Summary of Moves Alleged to Violate Applicable Law

Moves Conducted Prior to Sentencing Order

Moves Conducted After September 10, 2004 Stipulation to Sentencing Order Filed with Los Angeles County Criminal Court

(End of Attachment A)

Attachment B - Discussion of Each Move Listed in Attachment A

1. Delores Lemus, 1/11/03

CPSD witness Smith testified that Delores Lemus received a verbal rate quote of $69 per hour for two men and a truck, and an estimate of two hours to move Lemus' goods within the City of Long Beach. The subsequent charge was $425. Lemus also alleged $400 in damage to her sofa and loveseat. CPSD's testimony included a hand-written claim dated January 21, 2003, by Lemus, for $400 in damages. In its September 2005, response to CPSD's allegations, Mr. Move denies receiving the damage claim but offers no other rebuttal to the allegation.

We find that Mr. Move owes $400 to Lemus to resolve this damage claim.

2. Julie Arico, 1/12/03

Julie Arico had a piano moved more than 100 miles and was charged $483.00, which included driving time. Shipments in excess of 100 miles, however, should be charged distance rates. After meeting with CPSD staff on April 18, 2003, Mr. Move refunded the difference between the rates, $207, to Arico. This move was also included in the criminal case.

3. Richard Hood, 1/25/03

Richard Hood alleged that Mr. Move's workers snagged a telephone cable with their truck when delivering his goods to his new residence. Hood submitted a damage claim to Mr. Move for $245. After Hood rejected an offered $100, Mr. Move resolved the damage claim with a payment of $245 on April 17, 2003.

4. John Garcia/Nancy Leon, 1/25/03

The record shows that Garcia and Leon paid $510 for this January 23, 2003, move and that as part of the criminal case Mr. Move paid $1,090 to them. In the declaration offered in this case, Garcia claims $245 in damages. As the amount paid by Mr. Move exceeds a full refund of all charges paid plus the damages, CPSD has not shown that Mr. Move owes any further additional amounts.

5. Wendolyn Jones, 1/28/03

Jones alleged that Mr. Move workers grossly sullied her new residence. This matter was included in the criminal case and was resolved with payment to Jones of $25,000.

6. William Bernard, 2/27/03

Bernard alleged that Mr. .Move's workers were inept and another crew had to return two days later to complete his job. Bernard had Mr. Move's workers place his goods in storage. When removing the stored items, he discovered missing and damaged items. He submitted a damage and loss claim of $1,400 to Mr. Move, and accepted payment of $630. Bernard's move was included in the criminal case.

7. Virgil Budnic, 3/29/03

CPSD witness Smith presented Budnic's declaration stating that Mr. Move's workers billed him for packing materials when none were used as all items were boxed and ready for the move, took over three hours to drive 30 miles, and refused to unload the goods unless Budnic paid $1,291 cash immediately. Budnic had not previously agreed to a not to exceed price but he estimated the cost would be about $500. Budnic testified that the movers were disrespectful, and that he was not seeking a refund of the amount he paid.

8. Tish Gabar, 3/31/03

Gabar alleged that Mr. Move overcharged her and that workers damaged her goods and new residence. She was charged $1,076.01. As part of the criminal proceeding, she received payments totaling $2,131 from Mr. Move.

9. Angela Lussier, 6/7/03

Lussier alleged that Mr. Move overcharged her for moving and storing her goods. Lussier estimated that her final bill would be about $200, but Mr. Move billed her $485.49. With the intervention of the Los Angeles City Attorney's office and CPSD, Mr. Move accepted $200 in full payment on July 21, 2003, in return for a full release from Lussier.

10. Rios, 6/8/03

CPSD witness Smith presented Janet Rios' declaration which stated that she contracted with Mr. Move to move her daughter with two workers and a truck for two hours at $75 per hour on June 8, 2003. After the move was completed in two hours, Mr. Move submitted an invoice for $192.50, which exceeded the $170 Rios' daughter had available to pay in cash. When the daughter presented a credit card for payment, the price increased to $225, which was charged to the card.

Upon report of the increased price, Rios immediately contacted Mr. Move's office and an employee stated that the $42.50 was for double drive time. Rios stated that the drive time between the pick up and unload locations is approximately 10 minutes and that double drive time was not explained to her.

Rios stated her intention to dispute the credit card charge, to which Mr. Move's employee responded: "Go ahead, I'll get it from them anyhow." Rios sent Mr. Move a check for $192.50 and disputed the credit card charge.

After Rios disputed the charge, the credit card company sent her copies of the documents, including the Shipping Order/Freight Bill, Mr. Move provided to the credit card company. Based on these documents, the credit card company restored the charges to Rios account. Rios compared the Shipping Order/Freight Bill that Mr. Move had provided to the credit card company to her copy provided on the day of the move. She found four major discrepancies between the two documents:

Rios states that the move took two hours and at the original contract rate of $75 per hour she should have paid $150 for the move, not the $225 charged to her credit card. Accordingly, she seeks a refund of the extra $75.

Mr. Move explained that the price differences are due to cash versus credit card payments, but offered no explanation for the other differences in the documents.

Mr. Move's alteration of the documents substantially undermines its credibility. We will therefore adopt Rios' understanding of the hourly rate and time worked. Mr. Move is ordered to refund an overcharge of $75 to Rios.

11. Lewis, 6/30/03

Barnett Lewis alleged that Mr. Move was holding his goods hostage because he refused to pay more than the not to exceed price of $1,995. With the intervention of Los Angles City Attorney's Office and CPSD, Mr. Move released the goods on July 8, 2003. This move was included in the criminal case.

12. Jin Lee, 6/30/03

Ms. Lee and her sister were moved from an apartment to two separate apartments, with some items also being delivered to their parents' home. All three stops were within three miles of the previous apartment. At the last delivery point, Mr. Move's workers demanded payment of $800, which Ms. Lee contends was excessive. After Ms. Lee refused to pay the full amount, Mr. Move's workers left with the goods. Ms. Lee called the police, and the movers returned. The movers accepted a cash payment of $630 and unloaded the truck. Ms. Lee and her sister met the next day with Eli Galam, whom they describe as indifferent to their complaints and threatening their credit rating. When Mr. Move sent a subsequent bill for $157, Ms. Lee filed suit in small claims court. The matter was settled by a payment from Mr. Move of $150 on August 13, 2003, and was included in the criminal case.

13. Muro, 7/12/03

Rachel Muro's move was scheduled to occur at 8:00 am on July 12, 2003, but Mr. Move's crew did not arrive until 3:00 p.m, with a truck much too small for the job. The same crew returned the following day with another truck, packed up most of the remaining goods but left numerous items in the house. (Muro valued these items at $2,000, and was charged $1,000 by the escrow company for removal.) Muro planned to have the items stored for one month at the quoted "special rate" of $150. She also arranged with Mr. Move to have her invoice faxed to the escrow company for payment. Escrow was expected to close on July 13, 2003, but did not close until July 30, 2003. Mr. Move was not paid by the escrow company but rather on August 8, Colin Currie sent Mr. Move a check for $1,000, which Mr. Move deposited on August 10, 2003. Despite the payment, Mr. Move refused to release Muro's goods and continued to charge storage at $474 per month.

During September 2003, Mr. Move issued a notice of lien on Muro's goods and noticed a public auction for October 9, 2003. After contact from the Los Angeles City Attorney's office, on October 6, 2003, Mr. Move released the goods to Muro.

Mr. Move received a small claims court judgment for $2,022 against Muro for unpaid moving and storage fees. Mr. Move contends that this judgment resolves all issues regarding the move. Nevertheless, Mr. Move offered to move Muro's belongings from storage in Long Beach to her current residence in Oregon at no charge.

Muro seeks reimbursement for a hotel bill of $7,080 for the time she spent "in Long Beach to straighten out this matter." She also claims loss and damage of $1,985 for items left behind at the house and $1,000 in charges from the escrow company to remove the items. Muro seeks a refund of $292.66 in overcharges and $100 penalty for Mr. Move's failure to provide her with the Important Information Booklet.

The Commission has the authority to order Mr. Move to refund unlawful moving charges and to reimburse customers for lost and damaged goods. The Commission does not have authority to award Muro consequential damages, such as the hotel costs.

The record is not clear as to whether the small claims court considered the items left behind and the removal charges. However, the fair market value of the services provided by Mr. Move to Muro in moving her belongings from Long Beach, California, to Portland, Oregon, greatly exceeds the amount in dispute. Therefore, we conclude that no further refunds or payments are necessary between Mr. Move and Muro.

14. M. Lee, 10/17/03

CPSD witness Zundel presented the declaration of Marguarite Lee which contended that Mr. Move workers had damaged her goods during an October 2003 move. She valued the damages at $2,500, but had not presented a claim to Mr. Move.

In defense, Mr. Move argued that the claim was made well beyond the nine months allowed in MAX 4 and denied it.

CPSD presented no further evidence. We conclude that insufficient evidence has been presented to support the alleged damage claim.

15. L. Clark, 11/8/03

Leda Clark's declaration was included in CPSD witness Smith's testimony and Clark was available for cross examination at the evidentiary hearing but Mr. Move waived cross-examination. Clark stated that Mr. Move neglected to load all items, left with the loaded truck without explanation, and refused to deliver her belongings after her December 8, 2003, move. With the intervention of Commission and Los Angeles City Attorney's office staff, Mr. Move delivered Clark's belongings on December 5, 2003. Clark paid only the costs for the original move, and did not pay $1,212.40 in storage fees and additional moving charges.

In response, Mr. Move stated that Clark left the moving location to rent a storage space with a promised return in 20 minutes. The crew completed loading and waited for two hours then returned with the loaded truck to the Mr. Move office. Clark contacted Mr. Move three days later, demanded delivery, and refused to pay additional charges. Due to the insistence of the City Attorney's office, Mr. Move delivered Clark's goods.

Clark's final claim for loss and damages is $9,688.80. Mr. Move denied the claim because Clark has not paid all storage and moving costs, $1,212.40, which Mr. Move contends is a prerequisite to a damage claim. Mr. Move cites to MAX 4, item 92, paragraph 7, to support its contention that all moving and storage charges must be paid prior to considering a loss and damage claim.

Here, however, the additional storage and additional moving charges are disputed by Clark. Mr. Move cannot use these disputed charges as a basis to ignore a loss and damage claim which substantially exceeds the disputed charges. Apparently relying on this erroneous interpretation of MAX 4, Mr. Move presented no evidence for the record on its investigation and evaluation of Clark's loss and damage claim.

We, therefore, conclude that Mr. Move improperly ignored Clark's loss and damage claim. Mr. Move should investigate and evaluate this claim consistent with our regulations. Any amount determined to be owed to Clark may be offset against the outstanding storage charges.

16. Mohn, 11/16/03

CPSD witness Smith presented the declaration of Bruce Mohn, which stated that he agreed to a not to exceed price of $700 but the movers charged him $1,477.50, for which he signed a credit card slip. Mohn's declaration does not state that the movers refused to unload his goods prior to making the higher payment. Also, for unstated reasons the signed credit card slip apparently was not effective as Mr. Move was not paid at all.

17. King, 11/21/03

Janet King alleged that Mr. Move's workers were slow and demanded excessive payments. Mr. Move also failed to timely respond to her loss and damage claim. However, with a check for $742, dated April 18, 2005, the damage claim was settled.

18. Guarnieri, 11/24/03

Aimee Guarnieri testified that she had hired Mr. Move to move her on November 24, 2003 and that she had not placed signatures or initials, purporting to be hers, on numerous documents presented by Mr. Move. She explained in detail that she is professionally experienced in concert set-up which is substantially similar to moving, and that Mr. Move's workers were intentionally slow and disorganized. She dismissed the first crew after several hours, and then Mr. Move sent one replacement person to unload the truck. She stated that she and her family finished the job. She explained that all her belongings were packed in sealed boxes and that the moving company that moved her in to her apartment took only 2.5 hours. Mr. Move, in contrast, charged her $560 for over six hours time. She seeks a refund of $200 in overcharges.

Going through the documents offered by Mr. Move, Ms. Guarnieri identified the signatures and initials she had placed on several documents, but also testified that numerous signatures and initials were "forged." The signature on the Job Completion Form which stated that she was "satisfied with the service" was not authentic, and she similarly disavowed the initials next to the not to exceed amount of $900 on the moving agreement. The Liability Waiver/Release Form contained 16 sets of initials and one signature, all of which the witness testified she had not made. Ms. Guarnieri confirmed that the point of pick-up signature on the Walk Through Report was hers but the point of delivery was not. The Damage Inspection and Release form contained four signatures that the witness disavowed.

Mr. Move offered no defense to allegations of phony signatures and initials, or overcharges.

This witness has presented serious and unrebutted charges which substantially undermine the reliability of all documents presented by Mr. Move, and demonstrate egregious violations of the requirement to provide capable help. These violations are addressed elsewhere in today's decision.

She has also presented credible and convincing testimony that she was overcharged by at least $200, which Mr. Move has not rebutted. Mr. Move is ordered to refund this amount.

19. Bennett, 11/28/03

CPSD witness Smith presented Amy Bennett's declaration which claimed $400 in loss and damages but did not include any documentation of the damages or proof of having submitted a claim. Mr. Move responded that it had not received a loss and damage claim from Bennett, and CPSD offered no further evidence. Accordingly, we have no evidence to support a finding of damages by Mr. Move.

20. Malloy, 3/11/04

Malloy testified that he incurred damages of $17,650 in lost or damaged household goods as a result of the move performed by Mr. Move in March 2004. Malloy testified and provided photographs of the `severe" damage caused by Mr. Move, and stated that Mr. Move's representatives told him to "go to hell" when he attempted to submit a loss and damage claim.

Malloy provided an itemized list of lost and damaged items with valuations. The list includes a damaged antique armoire, $6,000, and a missing antique Irish dresser, $3,500.⁹ Mr. Move offered to pay based on $0.60 per pound valuation a total amount of $120, but offered no evidence rebutting Malloy's valuation of the lost or damaged items.

Malloy obtained a small claims court judgment for $5,000 against Eli Galam, which was set aside on appeal.

Mr. Move responded that Malloy's move and storage was complicated because Malloy's new residence was not ready for him to move in.

We determine that Malloy is not bound by the $0.60 valuation option because Mr. Move failed to provide Malloy with "capable help" as required by GO 142. Malloy's testimony and photographs show that the lack of "capable help" resulted in loss and damage, e.g., broken glass and furniture. Carriers of used household goods must provide workers able to move and store furniture without severe damage; that is the essence of the "capable help" requirement. Carriers that fail to provide the required level of service cannot use the minimum per pound damage amount to shield themselves from the consequences of their failures. We conclude that Mr. Move owes Malloy the fair market replacement value of the lost items, and the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged items.

Malloy's damaged furniture has not been inspected by a furniture repairer to determine whether the items can be repaired, and some of his valuations seem high for used merchandise, e.g., Sony VCR, $250.

Malloy and Mr. Move have settled this claim.

21. Parker, 5/1/04

Francine Parker was charged $4,487.73 to move on May 1, 2004.

Mr. Move's workers arrived late. They were scheduled to arrive at 8:00 but did not arrive until 12:15 p.m., and stated that they had been on another job and she would be charged time and a half after 6:00 pm. They also moved slow, appeared completely inexperienced, and spent inappropriate time on trivial tasks, e.g., wrapping numerous plastic cups in bubblewrap. The movers also left Parker's refrigerator in the middle of her driveway. The movers did not complete the job and Parker was required to call another moving company to complete the move the following day for an additional charge of $371.66.

Hearing exhibit 6, provided by Mr. Move, includes the change order for Parker's move. Handwriting in the "additional articles and other services section" states: "shipper request 3 additional movers at an additional $90 per hour Total 180 per hour for first 8 hour."

The sheet tabulating total charges for the move shows that the first three-man crew arrived at 12:15 p.m., and worked for 14.75 hours. The second three-man crew arrived at 5:15 p.m. and worked for 9.75 hours. Both crews ended their billing at 3 a.m., May 2, 2004. Crew 1 billed 5.75 hours at $90 per hour, and 9 hours at $168.93. Crew 2 billed 0.75 hours at $90 per hour and 9 hours at $168.93. The higher rate is labeled "time x ½" but is not 1.5 x 90, which is $135.

Parker also contends that Mr. Move overcharged her for packing boxes. In her declaration, Parker states that Mr. Move charged her for 18 dish packs at $25.20 each for a total of $453.60, when only four dish packs were necessary. Parker also stated that Mr. Move used only 20 other moving boxes, not the 49 listed on her bill. Parker concluded that she should have been charged $229.95 for packing boxes, rather than the $861.99 charged by Mr. Move. Parker also claims $400 in damages to her furniture.

Parker contends that the move should not have lasted more than eight hours with three workers at $90 per hour for a total of $720.

In response to Parker's allegations, Mr. Move stated that Parker greatly underestimated the amount of goods to be moved and the extent of packing required, but that the agreement showed a not to exceed price of $6,000. Mr. Move also explained that the refrigerator was filled with books and was too heavy to be moved from the driveway. Mr. Move conceded that the movers were late starting the job and could have done a better job explaining the difficulties in size of the job. Mr. Move offered no rebuttal to Parker's allegations of overcharges for the packing boxes, damages, or need to call another moving company.

We find that Mr. Move failed to complete this move in a competent manner. Upon arriving late and seeing the scope of the requested move, Mr. Move's supervisor should have developed a more realistic estimate of the time and cost to complete the job and clearly conveyed this information to Parker. This information lapse, the resulting worker (and customer) fatigue caused by working until 3:00 a.m., and the inevitable surprise at the final bill total, are the proximate cause of this dispute. Even if we accept Mr. Move's contention that the workers were as efficient as possible, the handwritten notation on the change order could reasonably have led Parker to believe that she would be charged $180 per hour for the first eight hours of work by a six-person crew. We will hold Mr. Move to this representation. As Mr. Move offered no rebuttal to the allegations of overcharges for the packing boxes, damages, or need to engage another moving company, we will offset those charges against the amount Parker paid.

Revised Calculation

Crew 1

5.75 hours x $90 = $517.50

1 hour x $135 = $135.00

Combined Crew 1 &2

8 hours x $80 = $1,440.00

Crew 2

0.75 hours x $90 = $90.00

1 hours x $135 = $135.00

Hourly total $2,327.50

Packing Boxes $229.95

TOTAL $2,557.45

Damages - $400.00

Mover - $371.66

Parker's Total $1,785.79

The record shows that Parker paid Mr. Move $4,487.73. Therefore, we find that Mr. Move owes Parker a refund for overcharges, damages, and costs necessary to complete the job in the amount of $2,701.94.

22. Hogan, 7/17/04

Mary Hogan testified that she paid the full estimated cost of the move ($213) in advance, but that Mr. Move's workers demanded an additional cash payment of $250 before they would unload her family's belongings at their new home. She refused. The goods were unloaded, with the total time and charges within the amount paid for in advance.

This move was not included in the criminal case and occurred on July 17, 2004. Mr. Move offered no defense to Mary Hogan's accusation of holding goods hostage other than to note that it was undocumented.

Mary Hogan is an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was a credible witness. She sought replacement cost of a damaged coffee table ($500) rather than the cost of repair, $215, as she did not trust any workers hired by Mr. Move.

We find that the Hogan testimony to be substantial evidence that Mr. Move's employees held goods hostage and that Mr. Move failed to provide capable help. Given Mr. Move's employees' actions, the Hogans are reasonably opposed to further interactions with Mr. Move. Therefore, we will order Mr. Move to pay the cost of repair, $215, directly to the Hogans so that they may select a repair service.

23. Nagata, 12/3/04

CPSD witness Zundel presented the declaration of Ayumi Nagata which stated that Mr. Move's workers were unable to move her piano, despite the Mr. Move's scheduler's assurance that the piano would be "no problem." The movers also lost crib hardware valued at $20. Nagata subsequently hired another moving company to move the piano for $80.

Mr. Move stated that it had sent a loss and damage claim from to Nagata but the form had not been returned. Upon receiving Zundel's testimony, Mr. Move contacted Nagata and mailed a check for $100.

24. Ashe/Condojani, 11/10/04

CPSD's witness Zundel presented the declarations of Shanna Ashe and her mother, Gyl Condoljani. They allege that Mr. Move was scheduled to arrive at 6:00 am to ensure that the truck would be packed and on its way before rush hour. The movers, however, arrived late at 8:30 am, worked slowly, and subsequently spent over three hours in traffic traveling from Dana Point to Studio City, about 70 miles. The entire move took a total of 12 hours and the final price was $1,893. Ashe and Condojani contend that they were overcharged; they also had a damage claim.

Mr. Move responded that Ashe was a demanding and uncooperative customer, and that the claim has been settled.

25. George, 3/14/05

Lena George testified that Mr. Move's workers caused severe damage to her goods.

Mr. Move responded that George has refused to allow their furniture repairer to inspect the damage, and that George has failed to provide a list of damaged or lost items. Mr. Move did not dispute that damage has occurred.

The record shows that Mr. Move is not contesting the damages but that George has been uncooperative in presenting and allowing evaluation of the damage claim. Consequently, we conclude that George's damage claim is unsubstantiated and therefore denied.

26. Folk, 7/16/05

Ruth Folk alleged that only one of the three workers on the Mr. Move crew that moved her belongings actually worked which led to overcharges in the final bill of $1,785 for 11 hours work. She also alleged damage to her new residence. With a refund of $870 in moving charges, and damage claim payment of $548, the matter is settled between the parties.

27. Kay, 8/21/05

All parties agree that this move took place entirely on private property (within a mobile home park), and that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the move.

Nader Kay testified that Mr. Move's workers were slow, and that one particular worker was reportedly fired during the move. The fired worker blamed Kay. This worker used Kay's bathroom and soon after he left the toilet overflowed. Kay concluded that the disgruntled worker was responsible for overflow. Kay also submitted a damage claim to Mr. Move.

In response, Mr. Move explained that the worker was not fired during the job but several days later. Mr. Move also stated that it resolved the damage claim with repairs and a payment of $1,500. Kay had originally agreed to a settlement of $1,000 but after meeting with CPSD representatives, Mr. Move stated, Kay repudiated the original agreement and demanded $1,500, which Mr. Move paid.

28. Sugarman, 8/31/05

Ronald Sugarman testified that he was overcharged and that Mr. Move's employees stole, lost, and damaged his goods. Mr. Move sent a crew of three employees who arrived two hours late to begin the move, and provided him with a not to exceed price of $3,500 to complete the move that day. Subsequently, two movers were added to the crew but at 8:00 pm all were fatigued and loading was not yet complete. The move resumed the following day and continued for 12 hours. The record is not clear how many crew members were present on the second day. When beginning the second day of work, the crew leader presented Sugarman with a revised Agreement for Moving Services which showed a not to exceed price of $7,000. Sugarman accepted the revised Agreement as the Crew Leader stated that without the revised Agreement, the Mr. Move crew would not complete the move. The final price charged to Sugarman was $5,603.24. Sugarman seeks a refund of $2,103.24, the amount he paid in excess of the $3,500 not to exceed price.

Sugarman provided a list of items he alleged were lost or stolen, with no supporting documentation of ownership. In response, Mr. Move presented its customer service representative who testified that Sugarman had an extraordinary amount of small collectibles in his apartment which took an equally extraordinary amount of time to pack and move.¹⁰ Mr. Move provided additional unpacking assistance at no charge to Sugarman. Mr. Move offered to refund a portion of the moving charges, and to pay the final price obtained on an internet-based auction site for items comparable to the lost or stolen items. Sugarman rejected this offer and sought payment of the full retail price for listed items.

CPSD witness Zundel testified that Mr. Move violated laws and regulations relating to overcharges by initially stating a not to exceed price of $3,500 and then, when it became apparent that the move would extend to a second day, having Sugarman sign a subsequent agreement with a not to exceed price of $7,000. The final price charged was $5,603.24. No additional items to be moved were included in the second agreement.

Mr. Move offered no explanation for the increase in the not to exceed price.

A valid change order requires additional services or some other change in circumstances. Here, Mr. Move's employees stated a not to exceed price of $3,500 for the entire move to be completed in one day.¹¹ The only additional service identified in the record is one night of storage for the loaded truck - $150. Mr. Move has offered no justification for doubling the not to exceed price. We find that Mr. Move violated MAX 4, Item 130, by charging a price greater than the not to exceed price, and order a refund of the excess amount, $2,103.24, less the legitimate charge for the additional service of overnight storage, $150, resulting in a refund of $1,953.24.

Sugarman values his loss and damage claim at $13,000, based on prices for such items at "Geary's in Beverly Hills and most recently, Dublin, London, and Rome." Mr. Move has offered Sugarman $2,079.40 to settle the loss and damage claim based on prices obtained for the items on an internet auction site. The fair market value of used items is not the retail replacement price but rather the actual price paid for similar, i.e., used items. Mr. Move's offer of settlement of the loss and damage claim remains outstanding.

29. Germano, 9/17/05

CPSD presented Germano's declaration, but Germano did not testify. Mr. Move's witnesses rebutted each allegation made in the declaration, and testified that Mr. Move had refunded all charges to Germano.

The record is insufficient to support factual findings regarding CPSD's alleged violations by Mr. Move on this move. Therefore, we decline to make any such findings or related conclusions of law.

30. Doctors, 1/3/06

On the Friday before New Years weekend 2005, Sylvia Doctors called Mr. Move regarding the move she believed was scheduled for that day. Mr. Move had no record of scheduling this move, but sent a crew as soon as possible. The crew determined that the move could not be completed that day, and it was raining which further imperiled the goods to be moved. The crew chief accompanied Doctors to the building manager to obtain permission to delay the move until after the New Years weekend.

Doctors testified that on January 3, 2006, the crew returned and completed loading the truck about 4:45 pm. Doctors and her daughter, in the daughter's car, instructed the movers to follow them to the new apartment. Doctors arrived at approximately 6:00 pm but the movers did not arrive until 8:30 pm. When the new neighbors complained of the noise, the move ended at 11:30 pm.

The crew returned the next day and demanded payment of $2,600 in cash prior to unloading the remaining items. (Doctors had signed a moving agreement with a not to exceed price of $1,500.) After conferring with "the owner," the crew agreed to unload the truck but then insisted the Doctors immediately accompany them in their truck to the bank to get the cash. The crew lifted Doctors, who is 82 years old, into the truck and drove her to the bank where they received their $2,600 cash, and then drove her home. Doctors spent the subsequent three days in hospital for treatment of high blood pressure, brought on, she testified by the aggravation of the move.

Mr. Move responded that it had refunded the $1,100 over the not to exceed price to Doctors, but that they had not received a damage claim.

Doctors testified that she would prepare a damage claim, and that she wanted the $1,500 refunded and a payment of $10,000 to $15,000 for pain and aggravation.

(End of Attachment B)

⁹ The top and the drawers of the dresser were delivered to Malloy, but the main dresser structure was not.

¹⁰ The customer service representative testified that at Sugarman's residence was packed floor to ceiling with crates, boxes, and various porcelain and crystal collectibles, with only narrow paths between the stacks for walking. When assisting Sugarman with unpacking at the new residence, the customer service representative, at Sugarman's request, moved 150 - 200 boxes of these items out of the new residence to allow furniture to be placed in the residence.

¹¹ The "capable help" required by GO 142, discussed above, includes employees able to accurately estimate the total work time and materials necessary to arrive at a binding not to exceed price. Contingencies must also be factored in.