STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
October 3, 2002
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 02-06-032
This proceeding was filed on June 21, 2002, and is assigned to Commissioner Carl Wood and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jeffrey O'Donnell. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ O'Donnell.
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:tcg
Attachment
ALJ/JPO/POD/tcg
PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 10/3/2002)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
U.S.TelePacific Corp. (U-5721-C), Complainant, vs. Pacific Bell (U 1001 C), Defendant. |
Case 02-06-032 (Filed June 21, 2002) |
John Clark, Attorney at Law, for
U.S.TelePacific Corp., complainant.Ed Kolto and Kevin W. Coleman, Attorneys at Law, for Pacific Bell, defendant.
Elaine Duncan, Attorney at Law, for Verizon California Inc.; interested party.
U.S. TelePacific Corp. (UST) complains that Pacific Bell Telephone Company (Pacific) would not allow it to use the collocation facilities and arrangements (collocation facilities) used to serve customers acquired from Advanced TelCom Group, Inc. (ATG) without an explicit transfer from ATG to UST of ATG's collocation leases and other rights. In addition, UST alleges that Pacific refused to begin planning for the migration of any existing unbundled network elements and related interconnections until the collocation issue is resolved. The parties have agreed to cooperate in planning for the transfer of the acquired customers from ATG to UST using the options proposed by each of them. Therefore, the issue of Pacific's cooperation in planning is moot.
The remaining dispute hinges upon what rights, if any, UST has to the collocation facilities currently used by ATG. We find that UST has not acquired such rights. As a result, Pacific has no obligation to let UST take over the collocation facilities used by ATG. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint because no cause of action exists.
I. Background
On May 2, 2002, ATG filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Bankruptcy Code) in the Santa Rosa Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Bankruptcy Court). On June 7, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court approved an asset sale agreement whereby UST will acquire a portion of ATG's customer base, and ATG's facilities used to serve those customers.
The parties did not request hearings in this proceeding. However, on July 9, 2002 evidentiary hearings were held on a motion for interim injunctive relief. The matter was submitted on July 22, 2002.
