20161128_5129.pdf

DECISION 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