PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 13, 2013, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Illinois d/b/a AT&T Wholesale (“Illinois Bell”) and 365 Wireless, LLC (“365”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Wireless Interconnection Agreement dated January 31, 2013, under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of Xxxxxxxx Xxxx and by Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxx on behalf of 365, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on March 13, 2013. Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 13, Illinois Bell and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On May 16, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Vertex Broadband, Corp. d/b/a AthenaTel d/b/a Reason to Switch d/b/a TownLink Communications d/b/a INT Connections (“Vertex”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Interconnection Agreement dated May 7, 2008 under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx on behalf of Vertex, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on June 9, 2008. Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on June 6, 2008. At the hearing on June 9, 2008, AT&T Illinois, Vertex and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On December 14, 2021, PG&E filed the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in its 2021 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding, A.00-00-000 (“2021 NDCTP Application”). A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, SLO County, TURN and WEM each filed timely protests or responses to the 2021 NDCTP Application, to which PG&E responded on January 24, 2022. Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) filed a motion for party status on February 15, 2022. During the telephonic prehearing conference held on February 17, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Xxxxx granted party status to SCE and to DHK. At the prehearing conference the parties specified issues agreed to be within the scope of proceeding, and those issues lacking consensus as to whether they were appropriately included within the scope of the proceeding. On April 19, 2022, Commissioner Xxxxx issued the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling (“Scoping Memo”) which established the issues to be considered in the 2021 NDCTP. The Scoping Memo also requested comments on (1) whether the 2021 NDCTP should be consolidated with A.00-00-000, the Joint Application of SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric Company for the 2021 NDCTP (“SONGS NDCTP”); and (2) whether the Commission should conduct a site visit and/or public participation hearing for Humboldt Bay Power Plant (“HBPP”). PG&E, TURN, SCE, NCTC, SLO County, WEM and A4NR each filed comments on the Scoping Memo on April 29, 2022.1 yak tityu tityu yak tilhini Northern Chumash Cultural Preservation Kinship (“YTT Kinship”) and Xxxxx Xxxxx moved for party status on March 7, 2022, and April 22, respectively; these motions were granted by email ruling on May 20, 2022. The Settling Parties actively and thoroughly reviewed the 2021 NDCTP Application, PG&E’s supporting testimony and site-specific decommissioning cost estimates. To enhance their understanding of the issues, the Settling Parties submitted, and PG&E responded to, a substantial number of data requests. On May 31, 2022, A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, TURN SLO County, and WEM each served direct testimony. PG&E served rebuttal testimony addressing the issues raised by those parties who filed direct testimony on June 30, 2022. On July 7, 2022, XXX Xxxxx issued an Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Noticing Date and Time of Public Participation Hearing and Authorizing PG&E to Deviate from The Notice Requirement Timelines of Rule 13.1(b). On August 10, 2022, XXX Xxxxx canceled the public participation hearing...
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On or about August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the County, G.F. et al. v.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On October 20, 2005, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Illinois Bell”) and Megacomm Corporation d/b/a MegaPage (“Megacomm”), filed a joint petition for approval of a Paging Interconnection Agreement dated September 27, 2005, under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx on behalf of Illinois Xxxx and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx on behalf of Megacomm, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on November 17, 2005. Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on November 17, Illinois Bell and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On June 13, 2005, Xxxxx City Telephone Company (“Xxxxx”) and United States Cellular Operating Company of Chicago, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#1, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#4, LLC, and USCOC of Rockford, LLC (collectively “US Cellular”) (Xxxxx and US Cellular are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) entered into on or about May 13, 2005, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The Agreement was filed with the joint petition and supported by the statement of Xxxx XxXxxxx, Assistant General Counsel for FairPoint Communications, Inc., the parent company of Xxxxx. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on July 6, 2005. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of Xxxxx, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the Agreement. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received. Nor are there any contested issues in this proceeding.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On October 3, 2014, Xxxx Xxxxx filed a class action complaint in Xxxxx v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02208 (W.D. Ark.) alleging, among other things, that Toyota (as defined below) designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised and sold certain Tacoma vehicles that allegedly lacked adequate rust protection on the vehicles’ frames that would allegedly result in premature rust corrosion and that Xxxx Xxxxx and others similarly situated sustained economic losses as a result thereof.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On May 6, 2004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and Sage Telecom, Inc. (“Sage”), (collectively “Joint Petitioners”) filed a joint petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated April 30, 2004, under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxxxxx X. XxXxxxxxxx on behalf of Xxxx, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, a Status session was held in this matter on June 7, 2004. SBC Illinois, Sage, and Commission Staff appeared by counsel. Petitions for Leave to Intervene filed by AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc. (“AT&T”) and MCI, Inc. (“MCI”) were granted. Staff stated that it had not yet filed a Verified Statement in this docket. On June 14, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. The Parties filed replies (AT&T and XXX filed a joint reply to Staff’s Verified Statement and joint Exceptions to the Proposed Order; they are identified herein as AT&T/MCI). This matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on June 25, 2004. SBC Illinois, Sage, AT&T, MCI, and Staff appeared. Xx. Xxxxxxxxx testified on behalf of the Verified Statement, which was admitted into evidence, and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On April 15, 2009, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois” or “Carrier”) and Peerless Network of Illinois, LLC (“Peerless” or “Requesting Carrier”), filed a joint petition for approval of their First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by Xxx Xxxxxxxx on behalf of Peerless stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 24, 2006, Mid-Century Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (“Mid-Century”), and GTE Wireless of the Midwest Incorporated, Chicago SMSA LP, Illinois SMSA Limited, Partnership, Chicago 10 MHZ LLC, Illinois RSA 1 Limited Partnership, Illinois, RSA 6 and 7 Limited Partnership, Rockford MSA Limited Partnership, and Cellco Partnership for itself and as agent for Southern and Central Wireless, LLC (collectively, “Verizon Wireless”), filed with this Commission a joint petition for approval, under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. (“Federal Act”), of a telecommunications interconnection agreement entitled a “Traffic Termination Agreement” (“Agreement”). On March 15, Mid-Century and Verizon Wireless amended the petition to remove one of the Verizon Wireless affiliates as a petitioner. The amended petition did not alter any substantive elements of the original petition. The Agreement contains terms that were determined by the Commission in its Arbitration Decision in consolidated Dockets 05-0644, 05-0645, 05-0646, 05-0647, 05- 0648, 05-0649 and 05-0657. The Arbitration Decision directed Mid-Century and Verizon Wireless to file their complete Agreement for Commission approval. The Agreement was submitted with the instant petition. Statements in support of the petition, along with sworn verifications, were filed by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, on behalf of Mid-Century, and by Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct. On March 10, 2006, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was assigned to a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Commission. The ALJ determined that there were no disputed issues in this proceeding and that no evidentiary hearings would be required. No intervention petitions were filed. This matter was marked “Heard and Taken” on March 15, 2006.
