3. Procedural Issues

D.05-02-005, which awarded UCAN compensation for substantial contribution to D.04-09-062, determined that UCAN had met each of the procedural requirements described above, including financial hardship. However, because this request concerns work performed after the issuance of D.04-09-062, we must renew our examination of timeliness.² UCAN filed this request on April 24, 2007, within 60 days of the issuance of D.07-03-048. Cingular challenges the timeliness of the request because that filing date is more than six months after the issuance of the California Supreme Court's decision denying Cingular's petition for review. Cingular fails to mention that whether it would file a petition for writ of certiorai remained a live issue during that six month interval.

The Commission addressed timeliness, among other issues, in D.05-09-011, which resolved UCAN's request for compensation in a different proceeding. There, UCAN, as appellant, initiated the subsequent judicial review. On the issue of timeliness the Commission stated:

Since judicial review of a Commission decision usually occurs well after 60 days from the issuance of the Commission decision, we find that the [California] Supreme Court's denial of UCAN's petition for review on November 10, 2004, triggered the 60-day period, and thus find that UCAN's January 7, 2005, request for compensation was timely filed. (D.05-09-011 at 6.)

D.05-09-011 does not mention any further court challenges and it appears that judicial review went no further after the state Supreme Court acted. In contrast, the procedural history of this investigation does not end at the State Supreme Court but includes Cingular's petition for writ of certiorari (filed five months after the state Supreme Court denied Cingular's petition for review) and an all-party settlement (filed less than one week after Cingular filed the certiorari petition). Given these specific events, we find that UCAN acted reasonably to file its request within 60 days of the issuance of D.07-03-048, which adopted the settlement. Accordingly, we find that UCAN's request was timely-filed and that therefore, UCAN has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its supplemental request for compensation in this proceeding.

² Rule 1.7(f), which requires a supplemental NOI if an intervenor participates in judicial review, became effective on March 27, 2007, and does not apply here.