Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20161125Decision Memo.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM 1 DECISION MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER RAPER COMMISSIONER ANDERSON COMMISSION SECRETARY COMMISSION STAFF LEGAL FROM: SEAN COSTELLO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 SUBJECT: STAFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS PRIEST RIVER TELECOM, LLC’S CLEC APPLICATION CASE FOR MOOTNESS, CASE NO. PRI-T-10-01 On November 2, 2016, Commission Staff (Staff) filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Mootness” in Case No. PRI-T-10-01, a docket representing Priest River Telecom, LLC’s Application to become a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Idaho and obtain a Certificate of Public Necessity (CPCN). BACKGROUND On March 25, 2010, Priest River Telecom, LLC (Priest River or the Company) applied to become a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Idaho and obtain a Certificate of Public Necessity (CPCN). See IDAPA 31.01.01.114 (Rule 114). At that time Priest River was effectively incorporated through the Idaho Secretary of State’s office. In its Application the Company included an income statement and balance sheet from 2009, as well as a model tariff and price list. However, Commission Staff determined that the Application was incomplete and the illustrative tariff deficient under Rule 114. Therefore, Staff attempted to communicate with the Company’s owner and managing member, Corey George. Mr. George has been uncommunicative and all subsequent and recent attempts at contact have failed and, as a result, there has been no activity related to the case for approximately five years. The Company last filed an Annual Report with the Idaho Secretary of State’s office on March 24, 2010. The Company was administratively dissolved by the Idaho Secretary of State on April 11, 2011, after not filing proper reports and is not legally registered to do business in Idaho. DECISION MEMORANDUM 2 STAFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS As a result of the Company’s lack of response to Staff inquiries, the age and inactivity of the case and the administrative dissolution of the Company, there is no need for the Commission to further consider the Company’s pending CLEC Application. A case is “moot when ‘the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” Idaho Sch. For Equal Educ. Opportunity v. Idaho State Bd. Of Educ., 128 Idaho 276, 281, 912 P.2d 644, 649 (1996) (quoting Bradshaw v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432, 816 P.2d 989 (1991). Priest River’s CLEC Application was insufficient in its original form and is now over five years old and contains outdated and insufficient information which has left the case docket in an inactive status for much of that time. Further, the Company is no longer a registered, active business association in Idaho. Finally, any and all attempts at contacting the Company have failed and no response to notice provided under Staff’s Motion to Dismiss was received. Based on the foregoing, Staff requests that the Commission dismiss this case without prejudice on the grounds that it has become moot. RESPONSE No party timely responded or objected to Staff’s Motion to Dismiss. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to grant Staff’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice in Case No. PRI-T-0-01 for mootness? M:PRI-T-10-01_sc