IV. Discussion

In order for a settlement to be approved by the Commission, the settlement must be: (1) reasonable in light of the whole record, (2) consistent with law, and (3) in the public interest. Rule 51.1(e).⁴

A. Reasonable in Light of the Whole Record

The record of this proceeding sets forth allegations of a widespread pattern of violations of law, Commission GOs and tariffs by Respondent, including the damage and theft of personal property belonging to Respondent's former customers, failure to respond to claims filed by customers, failure to maintain legally required insurance, and operating as a household goods carrier while her permit was suspended. The record supporting these allegations include the declarations under penalty of perjury of Commission Special Agent Hossein Salaami, and documentation such as correspondence from Respondent's former customers, claims and civil complaints filed by Respondent's former customers, Commission orders of suspension and reinstatement of Respondent's permit, insurance records and freight bills and agreements for service.

The violations, if proven, demonstrate that Respondent has not only harmed the public but has also illegally operated her business in defiance of a Commission order suspending her permit.

The settlement would address the harm caused to Respondent's former customers by requiring her to pay them restitution, and would prevent Respondent from continuing to operate her business in an unlawful manner by canceling her permit and requiring her not to reapply for a permit or to operate as a household goods carrier for five years. The enforcement authority given to CSD by the settlement also ensures that Respondent will be required to follow through on her obligations and to comply with the applicable law. We therefore find the settlement reasonable in light of the whole record.

B. Consistent with the Law

None of the actions required by the settlement would violate any statute or Commission rule or regulation. Indeed, the settlement upholds the law (in particular, the Household Goods Carriers Act, Public Utilities Code Section 5101 et seq.) by providing substantial sanctions for alleged violations that Respondent, under the terms of the settlement, is not contesting.

C. In the Public Interest

The Commission is responsible for protecting the public from the risk of loss or harm caused by the operations of unscrupulous household goods carriers. Members of the public necessarily place great trust in household goods carriers in order to have their personal property moved from one location to another. The settlement would serve the public interest by requiring Respondent to repay her former customers for any loss or harm caused by unlawful acts or omissions of her business, Moving for Less, and ensuring that Respondent will not operate as a household goods carrier for five years. The settlement also protects the public by requiring Ms. Rodley to make significant disclosures if she reapplies for a permit in the future, so that the Commission will have a full opportunity to determine whether she is fit to operate as a household goods carrier in California again.

For these reasons, the Commission finds that the settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, is consistent with the law, and is in the public interest. The settlement is approved pursuant to Rules 51 through 51.10.