PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 16, 2004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and nii communications, Ltd. (“nii”) filed a joint petition for approval of the Second Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 28, 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 Xxx Xxxxxx on behalf of nii, 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 September 21, 2004. Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on September 21, SBC Illinois 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 November 3, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and Cordia Communications Corp. (“Cordia”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 3rd Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated October 24, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Xxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, true and correct. At the early onset of this case, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on November 30, 2005. See Notice of Ruling (12-1-05).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5, 2004, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) and Cinergy Communications Company (“Cinergy”) (SBC and Cinergy are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30, 2004, 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 amendment was filed with the joint petition along with the statement of Xxxxx Xxxx, Director-Contract Management for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and Interconnection. 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 September 9, 2004. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx 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 amendment. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 5.1 In May 2016, the Bellflower City Council approved a request for proposal to seek bids for the purchase of Bellflower Municipal. The City received four responses, including one from California American Water. A citywide election then occurred, where voters approved the decision to sell Bellflower Municipal to California American Water. In September 2018, California American Water filed its initial Application. Cal Advocates filed a protest in October 2018. Following the January 7, 2019 Prehearing Conference, California American Water filed an Amended Application on January 22, 2019. In April 2019, the Commission issued a Scoping Memorandum,6 which was followed by a public 4 Quoting the Amended Application, pp. 2-4. 5 Asset Purchase Agreement, at Section 3. 6 xxxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M281/K394/281394942.PDF. participation hearing in May 2019.7 The Commission held evidentiary hearings on June 5 and 6, 2019, followed by the submission of Opening and Reply Briefs. On March 30, 2020, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposed Decision Denying the Application (“Proposed Decision”).8 Following issuance of the Proposed Decision, ex parte meetings took place between all parties and Commissioners and/or Commissioners’ staff. In June 2020, all parties filed Comments on the Proposed Decision, and in July 2020, all parties filed Reply Comments. On July 8, 2020, California American Water filed a Motion to Reopen the Record.9 The Public Advocates Office opposed the Motion to Reopen the Record.10 On August 5, 2020, the Commission granted the Motion to Reopen the Record and ordered California American Water to submit further valuation evidence and ordered all parties to engage in settlement discussions.11 That ruling was subsequently amended twice to, among other things, provide clarity on the procedure for California American Water to provide additional evidence.12 In July 2021, California American Water provided supplemental direct testimony that included a condition-based assessment and a system valuation.13 As of the date of this Settlement Agreement, Cal Advocates has not conducted discovery related to California American Water’s supplemental direct testimony. All parties elected to focus their efforts on settlement discussion with the assistance of an Administrative Law Judge assigned to facilitate Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On May 10, 2004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and Intermedia Communications, Inc. (“Intermedia”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Third Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated April 20, 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 Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Intermedia, 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 June 10, 2004. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on June 10, SBC Illinois, Intermedia, 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. 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 July 17, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile Central LLC, and Powertel/Memphis, Inc. (collectively, “T-Mobile”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 2nd Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated May 23, 2008 under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 2nd Amendment to 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 Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx on behalf of T-Mobile, 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 August 14, 2008. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, T-Mobile 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. 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 September 28, 2010, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois” or “Carrier”) and Time Warner Cable Information Services (Illinois), LLC d/b/a Time Warner Cable I (“Time Warner” or “Requesting Carrier”), filed a joint petition for approval of their Interconnection Agreement 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 Xxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of Time Warner 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 April 25, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and AccuTel of Texas, Inc. d/b/a 1-800-4-A- PHONE (“AccuTel”), filed a Joint Petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated April 11, 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 X. Xxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxx Xxxxxx on behalf of AccuTel, 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 June 3, 2003. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on June 3, SBC and Staff 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.”
