HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050104 Motion to Dismiss Appeal .pdfIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
IDAHQ TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
CITIZENS TELECO MMUNI CA TIONS
COMPANY OF IDAHO, CENTURYTEL OF
IDAHO, CENTUR YTEL OF THE GEM
STATE, POTLATCH TELEPHONE
COMPANY and ILLUMINET, INC.
Respondents
QWEST CORPORATION
Appellant.
Docket No. 30107
STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AND REMAND TO THE IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Appeal from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Dennis S. Hansen, Commissioner, presiding
IPU C Docket #Q WE~T -02-
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives.LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Charles W. Steege
Steese & Evans, P.
6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1820
Denver, CO 80111
. u
Attorneys for Appe llant
Alfred Mamlet
Marc Paul
Steptoe and Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue
Washington DC 20036
Attorneys for Respondent illumine!
Morgan W. Richards
O. Box 1632
Boise, ID 83701
Attorney!orli.espondent=uuCitizensJJnd
Electric Lightwave, Inc.
........uu . ...
Conley Ward
Givens Pursley
277 North 6th Street - Suite 200
Boise, ID 83701
Attorney for Idaho Telephone Association
All of the parties to this appeal, Qwest Corporation, Illuminet Inc., Citizens
Telecommunications Company of Idaho, Electric Lightwave, Inc. 1 , and the Idaho Telephone
Association (collectively "the Parties )/ hereby stipulate pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 13.
that the appeal may be dismissed and the matter remanded to the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Commission Specifically, the parties have reached a settlement thereby
mooting the appeal; however, the Parties request a remand to the Commission so that the
Commission can determine whether it should provide the Parties and the telecommunications
industry with guidance concerning the scope and precedential impact of its Orders.
This Court's rules specifically allow the Court to remand a matter to the Commission for
further hearings upon' a stipulation of "all affected parties
Upon stipulation of all affected parties that a . . . civil judgment of
the .
. .
administrative agency may be . . . remanded for further
hearings, the court may enter an order accomplishing the stipulated
result without briefs, oral argument, or an opinion of the court. . . .
Idaho Appellate Rule 13.5. The Parties request that the Court remand this matter to the
Commission for further proceedings; specifically, for the Commission to determine whether it
should provide the Parties, the industry at large, and other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies such
as other state regulatory commissions and the American Arbitration Association (AAA) with
clarity concerning the scope and precedential impact of its Orders.
Other non-parties to this case are citing the Commission s Orders as having preclusive
effect upon Qwest. The Parties to this appeal have reached a settlement that will eliminate the
Electric Lightwave, Inc. intervened in the proceeding; therefore, their name is not on the
caption. R Vol. I, pp. 21 34.
2 CenturyTel of Idaho, CenturyTel of the Gem State, and Potlatch Telephone Company
withdrew from the case before the November, 2003 hearing before the Commission. R Vol. I
pp. 38 43.
- 2-
need or ability of this Court to issue a decision on the merits. The Parties request the Court
dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to allow the Commission to determine whether it is
appropriate to provide the parties and telecommunications industry with additional clarity as to
the scope and precedential impact of its Orders. There is substantial precedent for remanding a
matter to allow the lower court - here the Commission - to detennine the scope of its decision
especially in light of a settlement. In US. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership,
513 U. S. 18 (1994), the United States Supreme Court stated that a court of appeals cannot vacate
a lower court decision without extraordinary circumstances, but in the absence of such measures
may remand the case with instruction that the district court consider the request, which it may
do pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).Id at 29. See American Games, Inc.
Trade Products, Inc.142 F.3d 1164, 1167-1170 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Davis, Cowel Bowe,
LLP v. SSA 281 F. Stipp. 2d 1154, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ("when mootness results from
settlement, a district court may grant vacatur of its own judgment when equitable considerations
counsel in favor of vacatur; a fmding of exceptional circumstances is not required.
- 3 -
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully, request that this Court dismiss the appeal and remand
the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.
Respectfully requested this /f31.day of December, 2004.
tif~ Mary S. bson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Charles W. Steese
Steese & Evans, P.
6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1820
Denver, CO 80111
Attorneys for Appellant
Alfred Mamlet
Marc Paul
Steptoe and Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue
Washington DC 20036
Attorneys for Respondent Illuminet
Morgan W. Richards
O. Box 1632
Boise, ID 83701
Attorney for Respondent Citizens and Electric
Lightwave, Inc.
- 4-
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully, request that this Court dismiss the appeal and remand
the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.
Respectfully requested this day of December, 2004.
Mary S. Hobson (ISB #2142)
Stoel Rives LLP
101 South Capitol Boulevard - Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702
Charles W. Steese
Steese & Evans, P. C.
6400 S-. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1820
Denver, CO 80111
Attorneys for Appellant
Alfred Mamlet
Marc Paul
Steptoe and Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue
, Washington DC 20036
Attorneys for Respondent Illuminet
MOrg!t!~
O. Box 1632
Boise, ID 83701
Attorney for Respondent Citizens and Electric
Lightwave, Inc.
- 4-
Co ley Ward
Givens Purs e
277 North 6th Street - Suite 200
Boise, ID 83701
Attorney for Idaho Telephone Association
- 5 -