PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 17, 2009, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Aero North Communications Inc. (“Aero North”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Interconnection Agreement dated August 10, 2009 under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). 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 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Aero North, 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 September 3, 2009. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on September 3, 2009. At the hearing, Aero North did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 13, 2001, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, Inc. (“RCN”), filed a joint petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated May 18, 2001 (the “Agreement”), under Sections 252(a)(1) and 252 (e) 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 Xxxx Xxxxxx, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxx, on behalf of RCN, 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 August 15, 2001. Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on August 15, Staff and Ameritech 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 this 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 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.
1/ The Commission elected not to consolidate PG&E's NDCTP with the SONGS NDCTP in Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling issued on May 24, 2022, in A.00-00-000. The Settling Parties actively and thoroughly reviewed the 2021 NDCTP Application, PG&E’s supporting testimony and site-specific decommissioning cost estimates (“DCEs”). 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 Part...
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On November 22, 2000, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and Vectris Telecom, Inc. (“Vectris”), filed joint requests for approval of the First Amendment to Interconnection Agreement dated September 27, 2000 and the Second Amendment to Interconnection Agreement dated October 11, 2000 (the “Agreements”), under §§ 252 (a)(1) 252(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151, et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreements were submitted with the requests. A statement in support of each request was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxxxx, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and X. X. Xxxxxxx, on behalf of Vectris, stating that the facts contained in the request for approval are true and correct. 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 Hearing Examiner of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on January 11, 2001. Staff filed the Verified Statements of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx and A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, in Dockets 00-0753 and 00-0754 respectively, of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which were admitted into evidence. Xx. Xxxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Agreements. At the hearing, Staff indicated that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding, and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On December 16, 2005, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Illinois Bell”) and IBFA Acquisition Company d/b/a Farm Bureau Connection (“IBFA”), filed a joint petition for approval of 2nd amendment to the interconnection agreement dated November 28, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of IBFA, 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 January 17, 2006. Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on January 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 March 26, 2002, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech”) and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (“XxXxxx”) (Xxxxxxxxx and XxXxxx are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the negotiated portions of an interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated March 26, 2002, 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 remaining portions of the Agreement were determined through an arbitration petition in Docket No. 01-0623. Ameritech and XxXxxx submit those portions of the Agreement to the Commission for review pursuant to the Order entered in Docket No. 01-0623. A copy of the Agreement was filed with the joint petition. Also accompanying the joint petition is a statement in support of the joint petition from Xxxx Xxxxxx, Director-Negotiations for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company/Illinois Bell Telephone Company Negotiations. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on April 10, 2002. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of Ameritech and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications 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.
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 February 9, 2005, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) and CenturyTel Fiber Company II, LLC (“CenturyTel”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Second Amendment to the parties’ Interconnection Agreement dated February 2, 2005 (“Amendment”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“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 SBC, and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, on behalf of CenturyTel, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct. On March 21, 2005, Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxx 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. This matter was marked “Heard and Taken” on April 6, 2005.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On October 3, 2014, Xxxx Xxxxx filed a class action complaint in Xxxxx v. Toyota 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.
B. On March 24, 2015, Xxxxx Xxxxxx and others filed a class action complaint in Xxxxx Xxxxxx et xx x. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-02171 (C.D. Cal.) 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 the plaintiffs and others similarly situated sustained economic losses as a result thereof.
C. On April 23, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Toyota’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxx’ complaint. Pursuant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas’ Order, plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxx’ claims for breach of express and implied warranties were dismissed, while the order upheld his claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for unjust enrichment and for declaratory relief..
D. On June 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order granting Toyota’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxx and others without prejudice.
E. On June 19, 2015, plaintiff Xxxxx Xxxxxx and others filed a First Amended Complaint.
F. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas issued an Order granting in part and denying in part, Toyota’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Xxxx Xxxxx’ claims. Pursuant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas’ Order, Toyota’s motion for summary judgment was denied on all grounds except that plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief was dismissed. In addition, according to this court’s order, Toyota’s motion to deny class certification was denied without prejudice. This court found it premature to make a ruling regarding whether class certification for any of Xxxxx’x three proposed classes should be denied based upon the plea...
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 30, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) ("SBC") and Cook Inlet/Voicestream Operating Company, LLC, by Voicestream PCS BTA 1 Corporation, its agent, and Voicestream Wireless Corporation (collectively “Voicestream”), filed a joint Petition for approval of the Fifth Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated January 14, 2003 (the “Amendment”), 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 Xxxxxxx, on behalf of SBC, and by Xxx Xxxxxx, on behalf of Voicestream, 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 18, 2003. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 18, Staff and SBC appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
