II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
D.01-09-058 concludes that Pacific Bell violated statutory and decisional law in its failure to adequately disclose information related to Caller ID blocking options, in its marketing of inside wire maintenance plans, and in its sequential marketing (starting with the highest priced package) of optional services. The decision orders a number of remedial measures, including notification of customers who may have been affected by Pacific Bell's misleading sales strategies, revisions to Pacific Bell's Tariff Rule 12, and internal changes designed to emphasize service over sales or marketing. Among other things, the decision limits Pacific's sales-volume based incentive compensation for service representatives and their immediate supervisors to 5% of the employees' monthly compensation. Finally, the decision imposes $25.55 million in penalties on Pacific.
On September 24, 2001, shortly after the Commission approved D.01-09-058,2 Pacific filed a complaint in federal district court challenging the decision. (Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Richard A. Bilas, et al., C01-03610 (N.D. Cal.).) On October 10, 2001, the district court issued a temporary retraining order (TRO) enjoining the Commission from enforcing the cap on incentive compensation as it relates to employees covered by the NLRA.3
On October 19, 2001, Pacific filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Rehearing and Judicial Review of D.01-09-058, along with a Motion to Shorten Time. On October 25, 2001, the Commission issued an order on its own motion in response to the federal district court's TRO. That order stayed the cap on incentive compensation, without distinguishing between employees covered by the NLRA and their immediate supervisors, until further order of the Commission. (See D.01-10-045, Order Staying Ordering Paragraph 12 of Decision 01-09-058.) That order also denied Pacific's Motion to Shorten Time.
As stated above, applications for rehearing of D.01-09-058 were filed by CWA on October 26, 2001, Greenlining on November 2, 2001, and Pacific on November 5, 2001. On November 5, 2001, Pacific also submitted a request to the Executive Director for an extension of the effective date of the decision pending the Commission's ruling on Pacific's Emergency Motion for Stay. On November 29, 2001, the Commission denied Pacific's Emergency Motion for Stay without prejudice. On December 5, 2001, the Executive Director, after initially denying Pacific's extension request, granted an extension of time for Pacific to comply with Ordering Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 until 45 days after the effective date of the Commission's order on rehearing.
On November 15, 2001, Pacific filed a Petition for Stay, or in the Alternative, for a Writ of Mandate and/or Review in the First District Court of Appeal in an attempt to have the court stay D.01-09-058. On November 19, 2001, prior to the Commission filing its response, the court issued an order stating that it would be premature for the court to entertain Pacific's stay request because two requests were pending before the Commission. The court deferred Pacific's request for a stay pending action by the Commission and Executive Director. (Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, A096828.) On December 6, 2001, the Court of Appeal denied Pacific's Petition for Stay, and denied Pacific's Petition for Writ of Mandate without prejudice.
2 The decision was voted on at the September 20, 2001 Commission meeting, but was not mailed until October 5, 2001. 3 On January 25, 2001, a hearing was held in federal district court on a motion to dismiss filed by the Commission. The court has not yet ruled on that motion.
