II. Procedural History

The Commission's Order Instituting Investigation (OII) against Respondent charges her with violations of the Public Utilities Code and Commission tariffs and General Orders (Gos) regulating household goods carriers. On February 17, 2000, pursuant to a request by the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), CSD filed and served a supplemental pleading which clarified the dates, times, places and persons involved in each violation. The charges as stated in the OII, are that Respondent:

a. Demonstrated her unfitness to hold operating authority under Section 5135 of the Public Utilities Code by failing to divulge to the Commission her prior conviction and those of her associates (1 count);

b. Violated Section 5135 of the Public Utilities Code by unlawfully and fraudulently appropriating property entrusted to her as a carrier to a use inconsistent with the safekeeping of such property (2 counts);

c. Violated Section 5245 of the Public Utilities Code, and Item 108 of MAX 4 by giving estimates not in writing or not based upon visual inspection of the goods to be moved (1 count);

d. Violated Section 5139 of the Public Utilities Code by permitting the use of inadequately trained or supervised crews (3 counts);

e. Violated Section 5139 of the Public Utilities Code, and Items 128 and 132 of MAX 4, by failing to show required information on shipping documents, including points of origin and destination, insurance valuation declarations, shipment descriptions, times, dates and a Not To Exceed Price (186 counts);

f. Violated Section 5286 of the Public Utilities Code by conducting operations as a household goods carrier during a period when her permit was suspended (24 counts);

g. Violated Sections 5139 and 5162 of the Public Utilities Code and GO 100-M by failing to procure, and continue in effect so long as she conducted operations as a household goods carrier, adequate protection against public liability (2 counts);

h. Violated Section 5139 of the Public Utilities Code and GO 136-C by failing to procure, and continue in effect so long as she conducted operations as a household goods carrier, adequate cargo insurance (1 count); and,

i. Violated Section 5139 of the Public Utilities Code, and Item 92 of MAX 4, by failing to acknowledge and process loss and damage claims submitted by customers in a timely manner (9 counts).¹

The violations allegedly occurred in the San Diego, California, area.

Prehearing conferences (PHCs) were held on January 25, March 16, March 31, June 7, and June 26, 2000.

Respondent, through her counsel, denied each of the charges at the March 31, 2000 PHC. (R.T. 37: 7-11).

A scoping memo and ruling of the Assigned Commissioner and ALJ issued on May 17, 2000, confirmed the categorization of this proceeding as adjudicatory, designated assigned ALJ Myra J. Prestidge as the Presiding Officer, and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 26 through June 30, 2000 in San Diego, California. However, the evidentiary hearing was not held because the parties presented a draft settlement after the June 7, 2000 PHC. The parties filed a joint motion for Commission adoption of settlement and a settlement signed by both parties on June 28, 2000.