Conclusion

Under the unusual circumstances of this case, it is reasonable and in the public interest to rule that Coleman may participate in the settlement process without running the risk that such participation will be held to constitute a waiver of his objections to personal jurisdiction. As the Joint Motion indicates, if the tentative settlement is approved, then "Coleman will accede to the jurisdiction of the Commission . . ." (Joint Motion, p. 1.) On the other hand, if the settlement is rejected, "the litigation will be returned to the status quo ante, in which Coleman has properly raised his colorable objection to personal jurisdiction." (Id. at 6.) The effect of this ruling is, therefore, merely to freeze the

jurisdictional facts as they stood at the time of the January 12 PHC; it is not a comment on the merits of the motion to quash. ⁷

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, IT IS RULED that:

1. Consideration of the motion to quash personal service on respondent Daniel G. Coleman, which motion was filed on January 11, 2000, shall be deferred while the Commission is considering, pursuant to the settlement rules in Article 13.5 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, the settlement in principle that the moving parties have apparently agreed upon;

2. Coleman's participation in the settlement process (including actions required as a result of subsections (1), (2) or (3) of Rule 51.7) will not be deemed a general appearance by him or a waiver of his objections to personal jurisdiction (unless and until the settlement is approved, at which time Coleman has stated that he will accede to the Commission's jurisdiction); and

3. In the event the Commission does not approve the aforesaid settlement, then the undersigned will set new dates for a response by CSD to Coleman's motion to quash personal service, and for a reply by Coleman to CSD's response, and a ruling on the motion to quash service will be prepared.

Dated February 15, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

		A. Kirk McKenzie Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Deferring Consideration of Daniel Coleman's Motion to Quash Personal Service While the Commission is Considering a Settlement Proposal on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.

Dated February 15, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

Mae F. Dyson

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to insure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.