Discussion
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5135, this Commission may refuse to issue a Household Goods Carrier permit "if it can be shown that an applicant . . . has committed any act constituting dishonesty or fraud; committed any act which, if committed by a permitholder would be grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit; misrepresented any material fact on his application; or, committed a felony, or an act of moral turpitude."
CSD has presented credible evidence that this applicant: (1) was convicted of burglary, both a felony and an act of dishonesty, (2) was also convicted of driving under the influence conviction, which is sufficient grounds to suspend or revoke a permit, and (3) stated on his application to this Commission that he had committed no criminal acts that would disqualify his application under Pub. Util. Code § 5135(e), which is a material misrepresentation.
Applicant has presented no evidence disputing CSD's allegations. Applicant has stated that his criminal convictions occurred in his youth, that his driving under the influence violation was an isolated event brought about by great personal stress, and that no complaints were lodged against him when he operated a moving company. However, Applicant has not attempted to excuse or justify his material misrepresentation of fact in his application where he denied having such violations.
While we are sympathetic with the desire of applicant to conduct his business, operating as Household Goods Carrier necessarily requires strict compliance with traffic safety requirements, as well as the highest standard of trustworthiness for protection of the goods entrusted by the public. CSD has presented essentially unrefuted evidence that this carrier does not meet these standards.
Therefore, we find that the CSD reports contained in the record of this proceeding show that applicant has committed one or more of the grounds set out in Pub. Util. Code § 5135 upon which we may refuse to issue a Household Goods Carrier permit. Based on this record, and pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 5135, we refuse to issue a Household Goods Carrier permit to William E. Finley, dba Bill Finley Moving Services.
The draft decision of Administrative Law Judge Bushey in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on __________, and reply comments were filed on _______________.
1. Applicant presented no justification for hearings despite directions from the ALJ to do so.
2. No hearing is necessary.
3. CSD has presented credible and uncontested evidence that this applicant was convicted of burglary and of driving under the influence, and that he also stated on his application to this Commission that he had committed no criminal acts that would disqualify his application under Section 5135(e).
1. Article 2.5 of the Rules ceases to apply to this proceeding.
2. CSD has met its burden of proving that the applicant has committed one or more of the grounds set out in Pub. Util. Code § 5135 upon which we may refuse to issue a Household Goods Carrier permit.
3. This Commission should refuse to issue a Household Goods Carrier Permit to this William E. Finley, dba Bill Finley Moving Services.
4. This application should be denied, effective immediately.
5. This proceeding is closed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The application for a Household Goods Carrier Permit of William E. Finley, dba Bill Finley Moving Services, is denied.
2. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
