V. Waiver of Public Review and Comment on Draft Decision

Since this decision approves a settlement agreed to by both parties, the requirement for public review and comment is waived pursuant to Rule 77.7(f)(2).

Findings of Fact

1. On December l6, 1999, the Commission issued an OII in this proceeding, which charged that Respondent was operating her business, Moving for Less, in a manner that violated the law and Commission rules and regulations, including appropriating personal property belonging to customers, failing to maintain legally required insurance coverage, failing to respond to claims filed by customers in a timely manner, and operating her business while her permit was suspended by the Commission.

2. Respondent denied all of the charges stated in the OII.

3. After several PHCs, the parties filed a joint motion for Commission adoption of settlement and a settlement on June 28, 2000.

4. The settlement requires Respondent to pay restitution to former customers who have suffered loss or damage caused by the operations of her business, Moving for Less, and to relinquish her permit and not to operate as a household goods carrier or to control, manage, or own any household goods carrier business for five years beginning on the date of the Commission's order approving the settlement. If Respondent reapplies for a permit after five years, she must refer the Commission to this proceeding, demonstrate her fitness to operate, show her compliance with any mediation agreement, arbitration award or judicial order in proceedings brought against her by former customers, and disclose any judicial, law enforcement, or administrative proceedings against her.

5. The settlement authorizes CSD to request the reopening of the proceeding in this docket to seek the imposition of fines and penalties, if Respondent violates a material provision of the settlement or violates a statute or a Commission rule or regulation.

Conclusions of Law

1. The settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record because it addresses the harm that Respondent's business allegedly caused to customers and the public by requiring Respondent to pay restitution, to relinquish her permit, and not to operate as a household goods carrier for five years. The enforcement authority given to CSD by the settlement also ensures Respondent will be required to follow through on her obligations and to comply with the law.

2. The settlement is consistent with the law because none of the required actions violate any statute or Commission rule or regulation, and the settlement advances the purposes of the Household Goods Carriers Act (Public Utilities Code Section 5101 et seq.).

3. The settlement is in the public interest because Respondent is required to pay restitution to former customers who suffered loss or injury allegedly caused by the operations of her business. The settlement also protects the public from the risk of continued harm caused by the operations of Respondent's business because Respondent is required to relinquish her permit and not to operate as a household goods carrier for five years. If Respondent chooses to reapply for a permit after five years, she will be required to disclose certain information with her application so that the Commission will have a full opportunity to evaluate whether she is fit to operate as a household goods carrier in California again.

4. In order to assure prompt compliance with the terms of the settlement and to quickly obtain the benefits of the settlement for former customers of Respondent's business and the public, the settlement should be approved, effective immediately.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The settlement attached as the Appendix, which is incorporated by reference, is approved, and the parties are directed to comply with its terms.

2. This order is effective immediately.

3. This proceeding shall remain open for 45 days and shall close after that time unless:

a. Consumer Services Division (CSD) has petitioned the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for further proceedings pursuant to Section 2.6. because Respondent has failed to provide her counsel with a certified check to cover the restitution payments to former customers listed in Attachment A, or Respondent has failed to deliver the restitution checks to CSD for mailing to former customers listed in Attachment A, or has violated any statute or Commission decision, General Order, rule or regulation.

b. CSD has filed a report with the assigned ALJ pursuant to Section 2.4. which indicates Respondent has failed to pay the required restitution to former customers listed in Attachment A, or has otherwise not complied with the settlement, or either party has requested the Commission to convene a prehearing conference to discuss CSD's report pursuant to Section 2.5., and the assigned ALJ has set further proceedings by ruling.

4. After this proceeding is closed, CSD may petition for the reopening of this proceeding and the imposition of fines and penalties if Respondent breaches a material provision of the settlement, such as failing to pay restitution to the former customers, or violates a statute, or a Commission rule or regulation.

This order is effective today.

Dated August 3, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

See CPUC Formal File for Appendix

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page