legal news


Register | Forgot Password

PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS, LLC v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMN OF THE ST. OF CA. Part II

PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS, LLC v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMN OF THE ST. OF CA. Part II
06:27:2006

PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS, LLC v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



Filed 6/20/06


certified for publication



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE










PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS, LLC,


Petitioner,


v.


PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,


Respondent;


UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK,


Real Party in Interest.



G034991


(Cal. P.U.C. Dec. Nos. 04-09-062, 04-12-058)


O P I N I O N



Original proceeding; petition for writ of review of decisions of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. Petition denied.


O'Melveny & Myers, Charles C. Read, Michael A. Gatto and Walter Dellinger for Petitioner.


Munger, Tolles & Olson and Henry Weissmann for Cellco Partnership as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


Law Offices of Earl Nicholas Selby and Earl Nicholas Selby for Nextel of California, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


Sprint Law Department and Stephen H. Kukta for Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P., Sprint Spectrum L.P. and Wireless Co., L.P., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


Wilson & Bloomfield and Leon Bloomfield for Omnipoint Communications, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


Cooper, White & Cooper and Sean P. Beatty for California Telephone Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


James B. Young for Pacific Bell Telephone Company (SBC California) as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


Russell C. Swartz for Southern California Edison Company as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


W. Davis Smith for Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


Elaine M. Duncan for Verizon California Inc. as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.


Randolph L. Wu, Dale Holzschuh, Kimberly J. Lippi, Helen W. Yee and Carrie G. Pratt for Respondent.


Rosner, Law & Mansfield and Alan M. Mansfield for Real Party in Interest.



* * *


Story continue from Part I ……


The Spielholz court then concluded, â€





Description Public Utilities Commission's multimillion dollar fine against wireless telephone company was based on the following findings: company's practices of charging its customers an early termination fee without permitting any type of grace period, failing to disclose to its customers known network problems and misleading its customers regarding the wireless network's coverage. These were unjust and unreasonable--did not violate company's due process rights and were not in excess of commission's jurisdiction. Commission's decisions were not preempted by federal law. Commission's order that company refund early termination fees to its customers was not overbroad.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale