STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

August 15, 2002

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN INVESTIGATION 01-03-021

This proceeding was filed on March 15, 2001, and is assigned to Commissioner Geoffrey Brown and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Janice Grau. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Grau.

Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.

Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.

Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)

If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.

/s/ CAROL A. BROWN

Carol A. Brown, Interim Chief

Administrative Law Judge

CAB:hkr

Attachment

ALJ/JLG-POD/hkr

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 8/15/2002)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Investigation on the Commission's own Motion and Order to Show Cause into the operations, practices and conduct of Titan Telecommunications, Inc. (U-6224), and Christopher Bucci, its President and owner,

Respondents.

Investigation 01-03-021

(Filed March 15, 2001)

J. Geoffrey Barry, Attorney at Law, for Titan Telecommunications, Inc. and Christopher Bucci, respondents.

Carol Dumond, Attorney at Law, for Consumer Services Division.

OPINION REVOKING TITAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INC.'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
BUT FINDING RESPONDENTS NOT LIABLE FOR
RESTITUTION ORDERED IN DECISION 00-04-012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION REVOKING TITAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
BUT FINDING RESPONDENTS NOT LIABLE FOR RESTITUTION
ORDERED IN DECISION 00-04-012 2 2

Summary 2 2

Background 2 2

CSD's Support for Rule 1 Allegations 4 4

Respondents' Reply to Rule 1 Allegations 5 5

Legal Standard for Finding a Rule 1 Violation 6 6

Respondents Violated Rule 1 in Answering Question 7 7 7

ACI Was Under Investigation for Consumer Misrepresentation
Within the Meaning of Question 7 8 8

ACI Had Not Filed for Bankruptcy Within the Meaning of Question 7 10 10

Respondents Did Not Violate Rule 1 in Answering Question 8 11 11

Respondent Is Unfit to Conduct Business in California 13 13

CSD's Support for Alter Ego Allegations 14 14

Respondents' Reply to Alter Ego Allegations 15 15

Legal Standard Governing Application of the Alter Ego Doctrine
to Bucci and ACI 15 15

Remedies and Fines 19 19

CSD's Proposals and Respondents' Response 19 19

Revocation 20 20

Legal Standard for Imposition of Remedies and Fines 21 21

Severity of the Offense 21 21

Conduct of the Utility 22 22

Totality of the Circumstances and Financial Resources of the Utility 23 23

Precedent 25 25

Findings of Fact 25 25

Conclusions of Law 26 26

ORDER 27 27

OPINION REVOKING TITAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INC.'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
BUT FINDING RESPONDENTS NOT LIABLE FOR
RESTITUTION ORDERED IN DECISION 00-04-012

Summary

We revoke Titan Telecommunications, Inc.'s (Titan) certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) and fine Titan $17,500 after finding that Titan and Christopher Bucci (Respondents) violated Rule 1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure by misleading the Commission in Titan's application for a CPCN filed with the Commission on July 19, 1999. Respondents failed to disclose in that application pending investigations concerning consumer misrepresentation that resulted from slamming allegations against Bucci's prior company, ACI Communications Inc. (ACI).

We find that Respondents are not liable for the restitution ordered in Decision (D.) 00-04-012 after determining that the alter ego doctrine cannot be applied to Bucci and Titan so as to hold them liable for ACI's misconduct. To hold Bucci personally liable for the restitution ordered by the Commission against ACI when Bucci was not named a respondent in that proceeding, would violate his due process rights. Titan similarly did not participate in the ACI investigation and cannot be held liable.