ALJ/MAB/vms DRAFT CA-10
6/14/2001
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ BUSHEY (Mailed 5/15/2001)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
|
Application of WILLIAM E. FINLEY, d.b.a. BILL FINLEY MOVING SERVICES, to Obtain a Household Goods Carrier Permit Pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Public Utilities Code. |
Application 00-11-051 (Filed November 20, 2000) |
^ |
Background
On March 28, 2000, William E. Finley, doing business as Bill Finley Moving Services (Finley, Applicant), requested a Household Goods Carriers Permit. As a result of a criminal records check of William E. Finley, Commission staff discovered that he misrepresented material facts on his application because he did not disclose his criminal history of burglary, driving under the influence of alcohol, or resisting arrest. Finley also did not disclose that as a result of his failure to appear for sentencing, he was subject to an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest at the time he made the application for a permit. On September 1, 2000, Commission staff denied the permit request, and informed Applicant that he could file a formal application with the Commission.
On November 20, 2000, Finley filed a formal application. In his application, Finley stated that his criminal history did not include a felony conviction or crime of moral turpitude. He also stated that his driving under the influence conviction occurred at a time when he was suffering from great personal stress. He also emphasized that no complaints had been filed against him when he operated a moving company from 1987 to 1997.
On December 22, 2000, the Commission's Consumer Services Division (CSD) filed a protest to Finley's application. In its protest, CSD stated that Pub. Util. Code § 5135(e) allows the Commission to refuse to issue a permit if the applicant: (1) has committed any act of dishonesty or fraud, (2) has committed any act which if committed by a permitholder would be grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit, (3) misrepresented a material fact on the application, or (4) committed a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. CSD concluded that Finley's criminal history, and his statements in the application, demonstrated that Finley had violated each of the four standards. Finley was convicted of burglary, both a felony and an act of dishonesty on February 24, 1981. A driving under the influence (DUI) conviction is sufficient grounds to suspend or revoke a permit. His DUI conviction occurred on May 29, 1999. On his application, Finley stated that he had committed no criminal acts that would disqualify his application under Section 5135(e), which is a material misrepresentation. CSD concluded its protest by noting that there appeared to be few disputed issues of material fact, so evidentiary hearings should not be necessary.
On January 8, 2001, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling stating that the basic facts at issue in the application do not appear to be in dispute and suggesting that evidentiary hearings did not seem to be required. The ALJ ruling, however, gave applicant an opportunity to file a statement regarding the need for hearings, and evidence that the applicant would present at any such hearing. The ruling also warned that failure to submit the statement would result in the record in this proceeding being closed immediately, and the case submitted for Commission decision on the record of the application and the CSD's protest only.
Despite an extension of time in which to file, applicant did not make the required filing.
