20220624PUC Clerk Certificate of Appeal.pdf

ldaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720, Boise,lD 83720{1074
Brad littlg Governor
Erlc Andercon, President
John Chatburn, Commissloner
John R. Hammond, Jr., Commissioner
June24,2022
Via E-Mail and Interagency Mail
suDremecourtdocuments@ idcourts.net
Melanie Gagnepain
Clerk of the Courts
Supreme Court
451 W. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-01 0l
Re: PUC Clerk's Certificate of Appeal
Supreme Court Docket No.:-2022
Dear Ms. Gagnepain,
Enclosed for your information and action is the Clerk's Certificate of Appeal from the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Also enclosed is the Notice of Appeal filed by Richard
Keavy on June 14,2022, and the $94 filing fee.
I have also enclosed copies of the two PUC Orders appealed from: Final Order No. 35351
and Reconsideration Order No. 35396. I anticipate that the Commission will issue and
Order shortening the title on appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 6.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 334-0338.
Sincerely(y
Jan N
Commission Secretary
Enclosures
cc: Chris Burdin, Deputy Attorney General
l:\Legal\TELECOtvfl SUP-T-22-0 I Keary Appeal\'SC_CvrLtrJ0220624.docx
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ldaho 8372O-0OT4Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
11331W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-4, Boise, ldaho 83714
IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD
KEAVY'S FORMAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST QWEST CORPORATION
DIBIA CENTURYLINK
Supreme Court Docket No.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-2022
Idaho Public Utilities Commission No.
QWE-T-21-14
RICHARD KEAVY,
Appellant
v
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
coMMrssloN, IDAHO ATTORNEY
GENERAL, IDAHO SECRETARY OF
STATE, CITY OF BOISE, BOISE CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, IDAIIO STATE
BAR, LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES AKA
CENTURYLINIVTT SWE ST/ET AL
Respondents
Appeal from the ldaho Public Utilities Commission, The Honorable Eric Anderson presiding.
Case Number from Idaho Public Utilities Commission: QWE-T-21-14
Order or Judgment Appealed from: Final Order No. 35351 and Final Reconsideration Order
No.35396
Attorney(s) for Appellant: N/A - Appellant Richard Keavy, pro se, 11282 W. Glen Ellyn
Drive, Boise, Idaho 83713
Attorney for Respondent: Chris Burdin, Deputy Attorney General, Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, P. O. Box 83720, Boise,ldaho 83720-0074
Appealed by: Richard Keavy
Appealed against: Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Notice of Appeal Filed: June 14,2022
Amended Notice of Appeal filed: N/A
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL - I
Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: N/A
Amended Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: N/A
Appellate Fee Paid: $94.00 (June 15, 2022)
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Appeal Request for Additional Record Filed: N/A
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Request for Additional Reporter's Transcript Filed:
N/A
Was Agency Reporter's Transcript Requested: No
Estimated Number of Pages: N/A
If so, name of each reporter of whom a transcript has been requested as named below at
the address set out below: N/A
Dated this 24ft day of June 2022.
t
(sEAL)Secretary of the lon
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL - 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
T HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THTS 24th DAY OF JUNE 2022, SERVED THE
FOREGOING Clerk's CertiJicate of Appeal, in IPUC Case No. QWE-T-21-14, ON THE
FOLLOWING PERSONS, AS INDICATED BELOW:
Richard Keavy
11282 W. Glen Ellyn Drive
Boise,ID 83713
William "Tre" Hendricks
Lumen Technologies/CenturyLink
902 Wasco St., Floor I
Hood Nver, OR 87031
Steven R. Thomas
Hawley Troxell
877 W. Main St., Suite 1000
Boise, lD 83702
x US Mail, postage prepaid, June?7,2022
US Mail, postage prepaid, June27,2022
E-Mail to [e-mail]
US Mail, postage prepaid, June27,2022
E-Mail to [e-mail]
x
x
x
x
i
Commission
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL - 3
t
Ridtard Keavy ProSe*
11282 W. Glen Ellyn Drive
Boise,ID 83713
208-322-1383
Appellant:
Richard Keavy
vs
Respondents:
Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, Idaho Attorney
General, Idaho Secreury of
State, City of Boise,
Boise City Police Departnent,
Idaho State Bar,*
Lumen Technologies aka
Cen turyL ink/US West/eul.
i: f.li ll' CB
IN THE PUBLIC UTILTTIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF TDAHO
CASE NO. QWE-T-21-14
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appellant requests in addition a tort
formlmeans so to include those
parties who knowingly subomed,
encouraged and provided the
vehides by which the principal
pafly, Lumen, did intentionally break
promises and conracts while
misleading willing law enforcement
authorities and others who purposely
ridiculed, jeopardized and obliged
against consructive civil discord.
TO: THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS INCLUDING THE IDAHO PUC,IDAHO
ATTORNEY GENERAL, IDAHO SECRETARY OF STAIE, CTTY OF BOISE, BOISE CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARTY ATTORNEYS MESSRS THOMAS OF HAWLEY
TROXELL AND HENDRICKS OF LUMEN, IDAHO STATE BAR, THE CLERK (MS JAN
NORTYUKI) AND OTHERS OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED ADIVIINISTRATTVE AGENCY.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The above named appellant, Richad Keavy, does appeal against the above'named
respondens to the Idaho Supreme Court due to &e Idaho Public Utilities Commission final
Order #35396 (and otrer orderVcauses) signed the above-entitled proceeding on the 4ttr day of
May 2022, by Honorable three Commissioners presiding at &at time. Notice was postd 515122
2. Appellant has a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, and frre judgments or orders
described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and pursuant to Rule te.g. (11(aX2))
or (12(a))l I.A.R.
I
3. A preliminary statement of the issues on appeal which ttre appellant has outlined above
under he title NOTICE OF APPEAL intends to assert in the appeal; provided, any such list of
isues on appeal shall not prevent the appellant from asserting o&er issues on appeal.
4. I certify thar
(5) Appellant will pay appellate filing fee promptly upon advice ttrat it is due.
(6) Service is under way to all parties required to be served pursuant to Rule 20 Idaho Code and 5
67-1401(1).
(7) Appellant has been and continues the proces of attempting to Sgqg$* legal counsel to manage
the detail appropriately and respecdully before tlre Court.
(8) Appeltant was generally instructed by the PUC Seoeary system trat it would determine what
infonnation it wants the Court to see and would provide ttrat information directly to the court upon
receipt of this initial appeal endeavor.
DATED THIS 14ft day of June, 2022.
Appellant Signanrre
sate of ldaho )
County of ADA )
I Richard Keavy, being sworn, deposes and says: I am the appellant in ttre above+ntitled appeal
and that all sratements in &is notice of appeal are true and conect to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
Signature of Appellant
Subscribed and Sworn to before me ttis 14th day of June, 2022.
I 61t3122,8:05 PM Supreme Courl Appeal ol PUC 6-14-23
CERTTFTCAIE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served true and accurate copies of the foregoing Appeal to the Idaho
Supreme Court of ttre ldaho Public Utilities Commission Case #QWE-T-21-14 on the
following persons, as indicated below:
Name: Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary,Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Served by:
I x ] Handdelivery ro 11331 W. Chinden Blvd, Bldg 8, Boise,ID 83714 on'lL4la?
t 1 Deposit in the designatd courthouse mailbox
t I By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Name: Clerk of the Idaho Supreme Court of Appeals
Served by:
I x ] Hand-Delivery to 451 W. State, Boise, ID 83702 on 6lL4l22
t ] Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
t I By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
Name: William "Tre" Hendricks, Lumen Technologies/CenturyL ink
Served by:
t I Hand-delivery
t I Deposit in the designated couthouse mailbox
I x ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/15/22 addressed as follows: Wlliam Hendrick,
Lumen TechnologieVCenturyLink 902 WASCO Sneet, Floor 1, Hood Rivel OR 87031
Name: Steven R. Thomas, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP
Served by:
t I Handdelivery
t I Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
I x ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail6/15122 addressed as follows: 877 W. Main Street,
Suite 1000, Boise, tD 83702
Richard Keavy
6ll?f22,9:09 PM SuFeme court Appeal of PUC 6-14-25.docx
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I cenify that I served true and accurate copies of the foregoing Appeal to the Idaho
Supreme Court of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case #QWE-T-21-14 on the
following persons, as indicated below:
Name: LawrcnceWasden
Served by:
t 1 Handdelivery
t I Deposit in the designated courthouse rnailbox
I x ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/1522 addressed as follows: Anorney General
Lawrence Wasden, 700 W. Jefferson, Boise, Id 83702
Name: Lawercnce Denney
Sewed by:
t 1 Hand-Delivery o
t I Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
I x ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/1522 addressed as follows: Secreury of Sate, 450
N.4th, Boise,ID 83702
Name: Bradley Anfuews
Served by:
I x ] By deposit in &e U.S. MaiI 6/15122 addressed as follows: Bar Counsel, 525 W.
Jefferson, Boise, ID 83702
Name: Lauren Mdean
Served by:
I x ] By deposit in the U.S. Mail6/15122 addressed as follows: Mayor Mclean, 150 N.
Main, Boise ID 83702
Name: Ryan Lee
Served by:
[x] By deposit in the U.S. Mail 6/1522 addressed as follows: Boise Chief of
Police,333 N. Mark Stall Placg Boise, tD 83704
Richard Keavy
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
MarchZ2,2022
BEFORE TIIE IDAHO PT]BLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEAYY'S
FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST
CORPORATION
cAsE NO. QWE-T-21-14
0RDER NO. 35351
On Decemb er 2,2021 , Richard Keavy filed a Formal Complaint ("Complaint") against
Qwest Corporation dlblal CenturyLink (QUfE) ("Company"). Mr. Keavy was unsatisfied with the
outcome of the inforrnal procedures to resolve his inforrnal complaint and requested that the
Commission open a formal complaint against the Company.
At the December 20,2021, Decision Meeting, the Commission accepted Mr. Keavy's
Complaint. On January 12,2022, the Commission mailed a Summons and copy of Mr. Keavy's
Complaint to the Company via certified mail. See Certified Mail Receipr. On February 28,2022,
after the Commission allowed additional time for the Company to respond,l a response was filed
to Mr. Keavy's Complaint. See Response to Complaint.
Having reviewed the record in this case, the Commission now issues this final Order
dismissing the Formal Complaint for reasons explained below.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
l. The Complaint
Mr. Keavy complained that the Company failed to follow through on providing a
quality form of service related to "Call-Trace."2 Mr. Keavy alleged that through utilizing the Call
Trace system, he formed a contract with the Company wherein the Company was obligated to
provide him with the results of each *57 attempt that Mr. Keavy performed. See generally Keauy
Complaint at L Mr. Keavy alleged that the Company failed to perfonn its obligations in an
acceptable manner.Id.
2. The Company's Response
The Company defines the "Call Trace" system as follows:
I See Order No.35329
2 Call Trace is a system which allows a customer to dial *57 so that the called party can initiate an automatic trace of
the last call received. See Company Response at2.
)
)
)
)
)
)
1oRDERNO.35351
Call Trace. Allows a called party to initiate an automatic trace of the last
call received. Call Trace is available on a pay per use basis only. After
receiving the call which is to be traced, the customer dials a code and the
traced telephone number is automatically sent to the Company for further
action. The customer originating the hace will not receive the traced
telephone number. The results of a trace will be furnished only to legally
constituted law enforcement agencies or authorities upon proper request by
them.Mrarltal Trap and Trace is available where facilities permit.3
Company Response at2.
The Company stated that Call Trace was not intended to stop untoward telemarketers
from making calls, but rather, to provide law enforcement with an ability to address crimes against
persons and property. Id. at 2-3. The Company stated that its contractual obligation is to provide
the call information gathered from the call trace to law enforcement pursuant to a subpoena-not
by Mr. Keavy's request. Id. at3.
The Company argued that the Commission "does not adjudicate contract disputes
unrelated to its primary jurisdiction." Id. The Company stated that Call Trace is a discretionary
service; it is not a basic local exchange service as governed by Idaho Code $ 62-605. Id. at 4.The
Company stated that discretionary services are non-regulated services; thus, Mr. Keavy failed to
state a claim by which the Commission could grant relief. Id. T"he Company asserted that it
provided the service consistent with its contractual terms of service, it did not violate any statute
or rule in providing that service, and it properly advised Mr. Keavy of those terms. Id.
The Company requested that the Commission (1) find that the Company has not
violated any statute or Commission Rule; (2) dismiss the Complaint; and (3) find that the Call
Trace service is discretionary that the Company is not required to continue providing----or-in the
altemative, authorize the Company to discontinue providing the service to Mr. Keavy. Id. at 6.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission exercises limited jurisdiction and has no authority
other than that expressly granted to it by the legislature. Washington Ylater Power Co. v. Kootenat,
99 Idaho 875,591 P.zd 122 (1979). This Commission has no authority under ldaho law to
adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company. The Company is a telephone
corporation as defined n ldaho Code $ 6l-12l but is exempt from the requirements of Title 61
3 CenturyLink Idaho Catalog, Section 5.4.3.A. (https:iiwrru'.centurylink.com/tariffVsid_qc_ens c noJ.pd0
20RDERNO.3s351
public utilities laws.a See generally ldaho Code $$ 62-604 and62-605. For telephone corporations
under the jurisdiction of Title 62ldaho Code $ 62-605(b) provides:
The commission shall have the continuing authority to determine the
noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to basic local exchange service
for all telephone corporations providing basic local exchange service including,
but not limited to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access
to carriers providing message telecommunication service, filing of price lists,
customer notice and customer relation rules, and billing practices and
procedures, which requirements shall be technologically and competitively
neutral.
Idaho Code $ 62-603(L) defines basic local exchange service as:
[T]he provision of access lines to residential and small business customers with
the associated transmission of two-way interactive switched voice
communication within a local exchange calling area.s
The Commission finds that "Call Trace" does not constitute a basic local exchange service;
therefore, the Commission has no regulatory authority over such service. Accordingly, thQ
Commission declines to adjudicate the dispute between Mr. Keavy and the Company.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Keavy's Complaint is dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the seryice date of this Order with regard to any
matter decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See ldaho Code $ 6l-
626.
a The Company removed its basic local exchange service from Title 6l regulation in July 2005. Notice of Election,
Case No. QWE-T-05-13 (July 14,2005).
s See also ldaho Code $ 62-603(13) ("'Telecommunication service' means the Eansmission of two-way interactive
switched signs, signals. . . "
aJoRDERNO.3535l
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 22"d
day of March 2022.
PRESIDENT
JOHN CHATBI'RN, COMMIS SIONER
IIAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan
Commisslqn
I:\kgaI\TELECOIVAQWE-T-2 l-14 Kcavy\odas\QWET2 I l4-f nal-tb.docx
4oRDERNO.35351
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 4,2022
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD KEAVY'S
FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST QWEST
CORPORATION D IB I N CENTURYLINK
CASE NO. QWE-T-21-[4
oRDER NO. 3s396
On December 2,2021, Richard Keavy filed a Formal Complaint against Qwest
Corporation dlblal CenturyLink QC ("Company"). Mr. Keavy claimed that the Company failed
in its contractual obligations to him when he used the Company's Call Tracel (*57) system.
Following formal proceedings, on March 22,2022, the Commission entered its Final Order No.
35351 ("Final Order") dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Final Order
provides:
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission exercises limited jurisdiction and has no
authority other than that expressly granted to it by the legislature- Washington
Water Power Co. v. Kootenai, 99 Idaho 875, 591 P.zd 122 (1979). This
Commission has no authority under Idaho law to adjudicate the dispute between
Mr. Keavy and the Company. The Company is a telephone corporation as defined
in ldaho Code $ 6l-12l but is exempt from the requirements of Title 61 public
utilities laws. See generally ldaho Code $$ 62-604 and 62-605. For telephone
corporations under the jurisdiction of Title 62ldaho Code $ 62-605(b) provides:
The commission shall have the continuing authority to
determine the noneconomic regulatory requirements relating to
basic local exchange service for all telephone corporations
providing basic local exchange service including, but not limited
to, such matters as service quality standards, provision of access
to carriers providing message telecommunication service, filing
of price lists, customer notice and customer relation rules, and
billing practices and procedures, which requirements shall be
technologically and competitively neutral.
Idaho Code $ 62-603(1) defines basic local exchange service as:
[T]he provision of access lines to residential and small business
customers with the associated transmission of two-way
interactive switched voice communication within a local
exchange calling area.
I Call Trace allows a customer to dial *57 to initiate an automatic trace of the last call received. See Company
Response at2.
)
)
)
)
)
)
oRDERNO.35396
!
The Commission finds that "Call Trace" does not constitute a basic local
exchange service; therefore, the Commission has no regulatory authority over
such service. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adjudicate the dispute
between Mr. Keavy and the Company.
Order No. 35351 (footnotes omitted).
Pursuant to ldaho Code $ 61-626 and Rule 331, IDAPA 31.01.01.331, interested
persons were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to petition
for clarification and/or reconsideration. On April 12, 2022, Mr. Keavy emailed the Commission
Secretary and Commission counsel a correspondence titled: "Motion for Reconsideration of
'closed' Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 411212022." The Company was not included as a recipient of
the email.
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials,
the Commission denies Mr. Keavy's "Motion for Reconsideration" ("Petition").
COMN{ISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission finds that Mr. Keavy's Petition does not meet the substantive nor
procedural requirements for a petition for reconsideration. Rule 331.01 provides:
Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the glound or grounds
why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a
statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will
offer if reconsideration is granted.
IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01 (emphasis added). [n the Petition, Mr. Keavy does not set forth any
specific gtounds for reconsideration conceming the Commission's jurisdiction, nor does he
indicate the nature and quantity of evidence he would offer to show the Commission's Final
Order was "uffeasonable, unlawful, erroneous[,] or not in conformity with the law." Id. Rule
331.03 provides that "the petition must state whether the petitioner requests
reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories." TDAPA
31.01.01.331.03. The Petition does not contain a request for an evidentiary hearing, written
briefing, additional comments, nor a request for interrogatories.
Additionally, the Commission finds that the Petition was not properly served on all
parties. Pursuant to Rule 63, "[a]ll [petitions] . . must be served upon the representatives of
every party of record concurrently with filing with the Commission Secretary." IDAPA
31.01.01.063.01. Similarly, Rule 64 provides that "[e]very document that is filed with the
Commission and intended to be part of the record for decision must be attached to or
2ORDERNO.3s396
accompanied by proof of service . .." IDAPA 31.01.01.064. The Commission finds that Mr.
Keavy failed to serve his Petition on all parties or provide the Commission with proof of service.
Pursuant to Rule 332, "[g]rounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that
are not supported by specific explanation may be dismissed." IDAPA 31.01.01.332. Further,
Rule 65 provides that "[d]efective, insufficient or late pleadings may be returned or dismissed . .
.." IDAPA 31.01.01.065. Based upon the Petition's lack of specific grounds for reconsideration,
supporting argument, and proper service, the Commission denies the Petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DEI\IflNG RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to
the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the ldaho Appellate Rules.
See ldaho Code $ 6l-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 4ft day
of May 2022.
no_
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
:fr/"- lfrhW*:
JOHN CHATBURN, COMMISSIONER
R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
ATTEST
t*g
lHNoriluti)
Commission Secretary
I:\Lcgal\TELECOIvflQWE-T-21-14 Kavy\ordea\QwET2l-14_Fo_Remidratioo_cb.dc
3ORDERNO.35396