Control Number : Item Number : 165. Addendum StartPage : 0
|
|
|
- Corey Short
- 9 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Control Number : Item Number : 165 Addendum StartPage : 0
2 State Office of Administrative Hearings i^i Cathleen Parsley Chief Administrative Law Judge CLK`e^1J.71^iY November 24, 2015 TO: Stephen Journeay, Director Commission Advising and Docket Management William B. Travis State Office Building 1701 N. Congress, 7th Floor Austin, Texas Courier Pick-up RE: SOAH Docket No PUC Docket No Complaint of the City of Houston Against Southwestern Bell Telephone, LP d/b/a AT& T Texas Enclosed is the Proposal for Decision on Dismissal (PFD) in the above-referenced case. By copy of this letter, the parties to this proceeding are being served with the PFD. Please place this case on an open meeting agenda for the Commissioners' consideration. There is no deadline in this case. Please notify me and the parties of the open meeting date, as well as the deadlines for filing exceptions to the PFD, replies to the exceptions, and requests for oral argument. Sincerely, Wendy K.. Harvel Administrative Law Judge WKLH/ls Enclosure xc: All Parties of Record 300 W.1511, Street, Suite 502, Austin, Texas 78701/ P.O. Box 13025, Austin, Texas (Main) (Docketing) (Fax)
3 SOAH DOCKET NO COMPLAINT OF THE CITY OF BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE HOUSTON AGAINST SOUTHWESTERN BELL OF TELEPHONE, LP d/b/a AT&T TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL The City of Houston (Houston) filed a complaint against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Texas (AT&T) alleging that AT&T failed to implement certain rates under AT&T's filed tariff (Complaint). Houston sought a refund of overcharges. Houston filed its first motion for partial summary disposition on January 12, 2015, its second motion for partial summary disposition on January 21, 2015, and its third motion on March 16, AT&T filed responses on February 9, February 19, and April 13, 2015, respectively. AT&T's responses essentially stated that if Houston would agree to accept AT&T's calculations as to the amounts owed, AT&T would agree that partial summary disposition should be issued. But if Houston did not agree, then AT&T would oppose the motions. Houston agreed to accept AT&T's calculations on all but one issue. The parties settled that remaining issue. Because there are no matters in dispute, this case should be dismissed from the docket of the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). Pursuant to 16 Texas Administrative Code , the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission) may consider this Proposal for Decision (PFD) on dismissal. 1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY, JURISDICTION, AND NOTICE Houston filed its Complaint on April 17, The Complaint alleges that AT&T did not apply the correct rates under Section 49 of AT&T's General Exchange tariff pursuant to a contract entered into by Houston and AT&T. The Complaint divides the allegations into six different issues, each with several different subparts. Throughout this case, to simplify the specific issue being addressed, the parties and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have referred to the issues in shorthand by issue number and letter, such as Issue IA. During the pendency of
4 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 2 this case, the parties were able to resolve some of the issues in dispute. On July 16, 2015, the ALJ granted summary disposition with respect to all issues except Issue 1D after Houston agreed to accept AT&T's calculations. On September 29, 2015, AT&T filed a letter indicating that the parties resolved Issue ID and agreed to stipulations regarding that one remaining issue. Because the last issue was resolved, the ALJ canceled the hearing on the merits and ordered the parties to submit joint proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The record closed on November 2, 2015, with the filing of the agreed proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ordering paragraphs, which were agreed to by Houston, AT&T, and Commission Staff. Because the parties and Staff have agreed on the legal issues and refund amounts, and have provided the exact findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ordering paragraphs to which they agree, the ALJ has copied the parties' agreed findings, conclusions, and ordering paragraphs below, only changing the wording by placing the footnotes in the body of the text, changing some abbreviations, and changing the name of the attachment. The agreement is now ready for the Commission's consideration This case is dismissed from the SOAH docket under 16 Texas Administrative Code II. JOINT AGREED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS A. Findings of Fact l. This proceeding originated before the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission) on a Complaint, Docket No , filed by Houston against AT&T alleging that AT&T failed to implement rates available under Section 49 of AT&T's General Exchange tariff pursuant to Contract C52034 to MegaLink Digital circuits and MegaLink III circuits. 2. With regards to MegaLink Digital and MegaLink III services provided to Houston by AT&T, Contract C52034 authorized AT&T to make those MegaLink Digital and MegaLink III services found in Section 49 of AT&T's General Exchange tariff available to Houston under a term pricing arrangement at the location(s), quantities, and rates described on Schedule 1 of Contract C52034.
5 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 3 3. Pursuant to AT&T's Digital Link Service tariff, the rate elements that may apply to MegaLink Digital service include Interoffice Channel Mileage, Local Distribution Channel, and Inter-Digital Service Office Channel. 4. Pursuant to AT&T's Digital Link Service tariff, the four basic rate elements that may apply to MegaLink III service include Interoffice Channel Mileage, Local Distribution Channel, additional service features such as Clear Channel Capability, and surcharges. 5. On July 16, 2015, the SOAH ALJ issued SOAH Order No. 12, granting summary decision in Houston's favor with regard to those issues and in those amounts listed on Exhibit 1 to the Joint Response to SOAH Order No. 10 filed on June 10, 2015 (Attachment 1). 6. Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $8, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue IA related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $8, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 1B related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 1C related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston, by agreement with AT&T wherein AT&T did not admit liability, does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $36, as an adjustment to satisfy in resolution of Issue 1D as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 26.DHDA in the form of a check payable to Houston issued within 60 days of October 7, On October 7, 2015, the Parties filed a Stipulation to the amount of $36, for MegaLink III circuit 26.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $8, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue le related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $8, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $12, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue IF related to the Interoffice Channel
6 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 4 Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $12, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $24, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 1G related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $24, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $10, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 1H related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was granted by SQAH Order No. 12 in Houston's favor on this issue and in the amount of $10, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $5, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2A related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $5, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2A related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $13, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2B related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $13, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2B related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $29, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2C related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $29,
7 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2C related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2D related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2D related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2E related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2E related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $10, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2F related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $10, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 2F related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $2, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 3A related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was
8 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 6 of $2, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 3A related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 3A related to the speed calling charges for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was granted by SOAH Order No. 12 in Houston's favor on this issue and in the amount of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $8, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 3B related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $8, Houston agreed that no refund is due for the overbilling identified in Issue 3B related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 3B related to the speed calling charges for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was granted by SOAH Order No. 12 in Houston's favor on this issue and in the amount of $ AT&T does not dispute the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 4A related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA is $3, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $3, as the refund amount. 33. AT&T does not dispute the refund amount for the overbill identified in Issue 4B related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA is $3, Houston does not dispute has accepted AT&T's calculation of $3, as the refund amount. 34. AT&T does not dispute the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 4C related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA is $5, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $5, as the refund amount. 35. Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $4, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 4D related to the Interoffice Channel
9 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 7 Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $4, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $3, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 4E related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $3, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $2, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 4F related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $2, Without admitting liability, AT&T agreed to provide Houston an adjustment to satisfy Houston in the amount of $4, on Issue 5A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $4, as the refund amount. Summary amount of $4, Without admitting liability, AT&T agreed to provide Houston an adjustment to satisfy Houston in the amount of $4, on Issue 5B as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $4, as the refund amount. Summary amount of $4, Without admitting liability, AT&T agreed to provide Houston an adjustment to satisfy Houston in the amount of $2, on Issue 5C as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $2, as the refund amount. Summary amount of $2, Without admitting liability, AT&T agreed to provide Houston an adjustment to satisfy Houston in the amount of $5, on Issue 6A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $5, as the refund amount. 42. Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6A related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary
10 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 8 amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6A related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $10, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6B related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $10, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6B related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $7, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6C related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $7, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6C related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6C related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Without admitting liability, AT&T agreed to provide Houston an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $11, on Issue 6D as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage and the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $11, as the refund amount.
11 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE Without admitting liability, AT&T agreed to provide Houston an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $16, on Issue 6E as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage and the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $16, as the refund amount. 51. Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6F related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $ as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6F related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary decision was of $ Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $1, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 6G related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Summary amount of $1, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $32, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 7A related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink Digital circuit 21.DWDA Schedule 1 of Contract C52034 refers to USOC DDG, which relates to PL -DDS -Type 1 Digital Access Lines for transmission speed of 56kbps. Summary decision was granted by SOAH Order No. 12 in Houston's favor on this issue and in the amount of $32, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $5, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 8A related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink Digital circuit 21.HWDA Summary decision was of $5, Houston does not dispute and has accepted AT&T's calculation of $16, as the refund amount for the overbilling identified in Issue 8B, 8C, and 8D related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink Digital circuits 21.HWDA , 21.HWDA , and 21.HWDA Summary decision was of $16,
12 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 10 B. Conclusions of Law 1. This matter is properly before the Commission. 2. Houston is entitled to a refund of $8, on Issue IA as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 1B as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 1C as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA By the Houston-AT&T agreement, Houston is entitled to an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $36, on Issue 1D as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 26.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $8, on Issue le as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $12, on Issue IF as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $24, on Issue 1G as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $10, on Issue 1H as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $5, on Issue 2A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 2A as to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $13, on Issue 2B as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 2B as to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $29, on Issue 2C as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA
13 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 2C as to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 2D as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 2D as to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 2E as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 2E as to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $10, on Issue 2F as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 2F as to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $2, on Issue 3A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 3A as to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 3A as to the speed calling service on MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $8, on Issue 3B as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 3B as to the speed calling service on MegaLink III circuit 2l.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $3, on Issue 4A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $3, on Issue 4B as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $5, on Issue 4C as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA
14 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE Houston is entitled to a refund of $4, on Issue 4D as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 2l.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $3, on Issue 4E as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $2, on Issue 4F as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA By the Houston-AT&T agreement, Houston is entitled to an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $4, on Issue 5A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA By the Houston-AT&T agreement, Houston is entitled to an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $4, on Issue 5B as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA By the Houston-AT&T agreement, Houston is entitled to an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $2, on Issue 5C as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA By the Houston-AT&T agreement, Houston is entitled to an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $5, on Issue 6A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 6A related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 6A related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $10, on Issue 6B as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 6B related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $7, on Issue 6C as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 6C related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 6C related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA
15 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE By the Houston-AT&T agreement, Houston is entitled to an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $11, on Issue 6D as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage and the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA By the Houston-AT&T agreement, Houston is entitled to an adjustment to satisfy in the amount of $16, on Issue 6E as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage and the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components related to MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 6F related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $ on Issue 6F related to the two (2) Clear Channel Capability components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $1, on Issue 6G related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink III circuit 21.DHDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $32, on Issue 7A related to the two (2) Local Distribution Channel components for MegaLink Digital circuit 21.DWDA Schedule 1 of Contract C52034 refers to USOC DDG, which relates to PL -DDS -Type 1 Digital Access Lines for transmission speed of 56kbps. 50. Houston is entitled to a refund of $5, on Issue 8A as to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink Digital circuit 21.HWDA Houston is entitled to a refund of $16, on Issue 8B, 8C, and 8D related to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component for MegaLink Digital circuits 21.HWDA , 21.HWDA , and 21.HWDA Upon Houston's receipt of AT&T's payments totaling $333,128.66, the refund due to Houston arising from the complaint of Houston against AT&T in Docket No , Houston's claims asserted against AT&T in Docket No are fully satisfied. 53. As a result of this Order and upon AT&T's compliance therewith, the complaint of Houston against AT&T in Docket No is fully adjudicated between the Parties. 54. This proceeding was processed in accordance with the requirements of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utility Code (PURA), Texas Government Code , and Commission rules.
16 SOAH DOCKET NO PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ON DISMISSAL PAGE 14 C. Ordering Paragraphs In accordance with the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Public Utility Commission of Texas issues the following Order: 1. The request for relief by City of Houston against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Texas is granted as specified in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law. 2. AT&T is ordered to pay to Houston the sum total of $333, AT&T is ordered to pay interest at the rate of 0.12%, accruing monthly from the date of January 1, 2015, on those amounts listed for each Issue on Exhibit 1 to the Joint Response to SOAH Order No. 10 filed on June 10, 2015 (Attachment 1), until payment is made. The interest rate is set under Setting Interest Rates for Calendar Year 2015, Project No (Dec. 4, 2014). Those amounts include the applicable interest rate for overbillings set by the Commission through December AT&T is ordered to pay interest at the rate of 0. 12%, accruing monthly from the date of May 1, 2015, on the refund amount provided in the conclusions of law for Issue 1D, Issue 4A, Issue 4B, Issue 4C, Issue 6A (relating to the Interoffice Channel Mileage component only), Issue 6D, and Issue 6E, until payment is made. Each amount includes the applicable interest rate for overbillings set by the Commission through April The payments referenced in Ordering Paragraph Nos. 2-4 shall be made no later than 60 days from the final order. 6. All other motions, requests for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, and other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted, are denied. SIGNED November 24, WENDY - L. HARVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
17 Attachment I OUSTON'S ISSUE/COMPONENT EXHIBIT 1 AT&T'S REFUND CALCULATION (with interest through December 2014) AT&T'S REFUND CALCULATION REFERENCED IN AT&T'S RESPONSE TO THIS ONE OF HOUSTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION: 1A/Interoffice Channel Mileage $8, nd 1B/Interoffice Channel Mileage $1, rd 1C/Interoffice Channel Mileage $ rd 1E/Interoffice Channel Mileage $8, st 1F/Interoffice Channel Mileage $12, st 1G/Interoffice Channel Mileage $24, st 1H/Interoffice Channel Mileage $10, ist 2A/Clear Channel Capability $1, st 2A/Interoffice Channel Mileage $5, st 2B/Clear Channel Capability $1, st 2B/Interoffice Channel Mileage $13, st 2C/Clear Channel Capability $1, st 2C/Interoffice Channel Mileage $29, st 2D/Clear Channel Capability $ rd 2D/Interoffice Channel Mileage $ rd 2E/Clear Channel Capability $ rd 2E/Interoffice Channel Mileage $ rd 2F/Clear Channel capability $ rd 2F/Interoffice Channel Mileage $10, rd 3A/Clear Channel Capability $ rd 3A/Interoffice Channel Mileage $2, rd 3A/Speed Calling $ rd 3B/Clear Channel Capability $0.00 2nd/3rd 3B/Interoffice Channel Mileage $8, nd/3rd 3B/Speed Calling $ rd 4D/Interoffice Channel Mileage $4, st 4E/Interoffice Channel Mileage $3, rd 4F/Interoffice Channel Mileage $2, rd 5A/Interoffice Channel Mileage $4, rd 5B/Interoffice Channel Mileage $4, rd 5C/Interoffice Channel Mileage $2, rd 6A/Local Distribution Channel $1, st 6A/Clear Channel Capability $1, st 6B/Local Distribution Channel $1, st 6B/interoffice Channel Mileage $10, st 6C/Local Distribution Channel $1, st 6C/Clear Channel Capability $1, st 6C/Interoffice Channel Mileage $7, st 6F/Local Distribution Channel $1, nd 6F/Clear Channel Capability $ nd
18 Attachment I AT&T'S REFUND CALCULATION AT&T'S REFERENCED IN AT&T'S REFUND RESPONSE TO THIS CALCULATION ONE OF HOUSTON'S HOUSTON'S (with interest through MOTION FOR ISSUE/COMPONENT December 2014) SUMMARY DECISION: 6G/Local Distribution Channel $1, nd 7A/Digital Local Channel $32, st 8A/Interoffice Channel Mileage $5, rd 8B, 8C, 8D/Interoffice Channel Mileage $16, rd TOTAL $251,008.32
19 AGENCY: STYLE/CASE: SOAH DOCKET NUMBER: REFERRING AGENCY CASE: STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AUSTIN OFFICE 300 West 15th Street Suite 502 Austin, Texas Phone: (512) Fax: (512) SERVICE LIST Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) COMPLAINT OF CITY OF HOUSTON AGAINST SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY dba AT&T TEXAS STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS REPRESENTATIVE / ADDRESS MARK WILDER SOUTHWESTERN TARIFF ANALYST 2514 TANGLEY ST. HOUSTON, TX (713) (PH) (713) (FAX) [email protected] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ALJ WENDY KL. HARVEL PARTIES CITY OF HOUSTON CHRISTIE M. VILLARREAL AT&T TEXAS 816 CONGRESS AVE., SUITE 1100 AUSTIN, TX (512) (PH) (512) (FAX) christie. villarreal. com SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE LP, D/B/A AT&T TEXAS MANDEEP CHATHA ATTORNEY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS LEGAL DIVISION 1701 N. CONGRESS AVE. AUSTIN, TX (512) (PH) (512) (FAX) PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS Page 1 of 1
CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG)
CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) State of Minnesota ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Robert B. Beale, Rebecca S.
RULES OF THE TAX APPEAL COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
RULES OF THE TAX APPEAL COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I (SCRU-13-0005988) Adopted and Promulgated by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai i As amended March 6, 1981 Effective March 6, 1981 With Further
How To Write A Letter To The Public Utility Commission Of Texas
Control Number : 42786 Item Number: 2 Addendum StartPage : 0 PROJECT NO. 42786 PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS PUBLIC NOTICE OF WORKSHOP AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS 1^'^'^1 1 ^. _ 3 ptf 3. The staff of
128 FERC 61,269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ORDER APPROVING UNCONTESTED SETTLEMENT. (Issued September 21, 2009)
128 FERC 61,269 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller. Energy Transfer Partners
TABLE OF CONTENTS Arbitration of Extended Warranty Contracts
Insurance Department Sec. 42-260 page 1 (9-97) TABLE OF CONTENTS Arbitration of Extended Warranty Contracts Applicability... 42-260- 1 Definitions... 42-260- 2 Mediation... 42-260- 3 Arbitration... 42-260-
Control Number : 42004. Item Number: 239. Addendum StartPage: 0
Control Number : 42004 Item Number: 239 Addendum StartPage: 0 SOAR DOCKET NO. 473-14-1665 DOCKET NO. 42004 tia 12 Am11: 50 APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO CHANGE RATES
MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT. If you want to file a SMALL CLAIMS ANSWER
MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT If you want to file a SMALL CLAIMS ANSWER MOHAVE COUNTY JUSTICE COURT You (the defendant) have TWENTY (20) calendar days to file an answer to the small claims complaint. The
PROPOSED REGULATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF NEVADA. LCB File No. R107-00. October 10, 2000
PROPOSED REGULATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF NEVADA LCB File No. R107-00 October 10, 2000 EXPLANATION Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted.
Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.
Case 2:13-cv-02349-ILRL-KWR Document 31 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA PUBLIC PAYPHONE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-2349 WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Case 4:05-cv-04026-JLH Document 34 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ORDER
Case 4:05-cv-04026-JLH Document 34 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOYCE BEASLEY, et al. PLAINTIFFS vs. CASE NO. 05-4026 PRUDENTIAL
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division
Case 1:14-cv-02211-AT Document 61-1 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 20 In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Plaintiff,
OFFICIAL ORDER of the TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE. Date: STATE FARM LLOYDS P.O. Box 799100 Dallas, Texas 75379-9100
No. OFFICIAL ORDER of the TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE Date: Subject Considered: General remarks and official action taken: STATE FARM LLOYDS P.O. Box 799100 Dallas, Texas 75379-9100 CONSENT ORDER TDI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Misc. Docket No. 93-0141L APPROVAL OF LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL TRIAL OF THE 241ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY ORDERED: Pursuant to Rule 3a of the Texas Rules of Civil
CHAPTER 42A HEARINGS AND APPEALS. Act shall mean the Casino Control Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12-1 et seq.
CHAPTER 42A HEARINGS AND APPEALS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 19:42A-1.1 Definitions The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context
How To Get Out Of A Policy With Great Southern Insurance Company
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION In re GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE ) MDL Docket No. 1214 COMPANY SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION ) (All Cases) ) SUMMARY (PUBLICATION)
19:13-2.1 Who may file
CHAPTER 13 SCOPE OF NEGOTIATIONS PROCEEDINGS Authority N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4d, 34:13A-11 and 34:13A-27. SOURCE AND EFFECTIVE DATE R.2011 d.238, effective August 11, 2011. See: 43 N.J.R. 1189(a), 43 N.J.R.
JURISDICTION: OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION DECISION 2009-03-24-02 / NON-PRECEDENTIAL P-08-055-H DATE: MARCH 24, 2009
JURISDICTION: DECISION CITE: 2009-03-24-02 / NON-PRECEDENTIAL ID: P-08-055-H DATE: MARCH 24, 2009 DISPOSITION: DENIED TAX TYPE: IRS LEVY APPEAL: ON APPEAL / OK S.CT. 107,003 AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
jurisdiction is DENIED and plaintiff s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 TRICIA LECKLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plaintiffs, CASHCALL, INC., Defendant. /
SAMPLE VENDOR AGREEMENT VENDOR # 00000. Sample Vendor, Vendor Title Sample Vendor Company. Evelyn V. Martinez, Executive Director
VENDOR AGREEMENT VENDOR # 00000 TO: FROM: Sample Vendor, Vendor Title Sample Vendor Company Evelyn V. Martinez, Executive Director DATE: SUBJECT: Sample Vendor Project This Agreement, by and between the
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA IN THE MATTER OF: Chapter 7 Case No. 97-03618 DJ THOUSAND ADVENTURES, INC., Debtor. ERIC W. LAM, exclusively in his capacity as Adversary
Case 2:04-cv-02247-JWS Document 45 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 2:04-cv-02247-JWS Document 45 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA GERALD and COREY ANDERSON, Plaintiffs, CIV 04-2247 PHX JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD. Civil Remedies Division
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Scott Christie, Psy.D. (OI File No. H-12-42635-9) Petitioner, v. The Inspector General. Docket No. C-14-88 Decision
TITLE XXIII CLAIMS FOR LITIGATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
RULE 231 (7/6/12) 153 TITLE XXIII CLAIMS FOR LITIGATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS RULE 230. GENERAL (a) Applicability: The Rules of this Title XXIII set forth the special provisions which apply to claims
General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case
General Information on Representing Yourself in a Workers Compensation Case Idaho Industrial Commission PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0041 Telephone: (208) 334-6000 Fax: (208) 332-7558 www.iic.idaho.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH GRADUATE SCHOOL, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. A:09 CA 382 TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COODINATING
WRITTEN ORDER NOT FOR PUBLICATION
WRITTEN ORDER NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALFREDO DINUNZIO and ROSANA DINUNZIO, Debtors. Case No. 05-04824-B7 Adv. NO. 05-90358-B7 ORDER ON MOTION
Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageid>
Case: 2:07-cv-00039-JCH Doc. #: 20 Filed: 10/03/07 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION MARY DOWELL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:07-CV-39
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Staff Briefing Papers
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Staff Briefing Papers Meeting Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2003... Agenda Item # **1 Company: Docket No. Vonage Holdings Corporation P-6214/C-03-108 In the Matter of
T.C. Memo. 2014-234 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RONALD L. KIRKPATRICK, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2014-234 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RONALD L. KIRKPATRICK, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 6525-13L. Filed November 17, 2014. Donald W. Pemberton, for
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF OREGON for the DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES INSURANCE DIVISION ) ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF OREGON for the DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES INSURANCE DIVISION In the Matter of CHERIE G. SMITH and BEST INSURANCE CONSULTANTS, LLC
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,
STEPHEN CALKINS General Counsel CAROLE A. PAYNTER (CP 4091) Federal Trade Commission 150 William Street, 13th floor New York, New York 10038 (212) 264-1225 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Financial Pacific Leasing, LLC v Bloch Group, LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 30891(U) April 4, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 652595/13 Judge:
Financial Pacific Leasing, LLC v Bloch Group, LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 30891(U) April 4, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 652595/13 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
Control Number : 41446. Item Number : 59. Addendum StartPage : 0
Control Number : 41446 Item Number : 59 Addendum StartPage : 0 SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-13-4070 PUC DOCKET NO. 41446 APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN BEFORE THE*1'16)[E^^I PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TO ^ ADJUST ITS
Wendy Musell Stewart & Musell, LLP
Wendy Musell Stewart & Musell, LLP In 2011, the federal government is the Nation's largest employer with about 2.0 million civilian employees. 600,000 employees approximately in the US Postal Service Laws
CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules Version 1.5 (July 28, 2014)
CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Rules Version 1.5 (July 28, 2014) Proceedings for the resolution of disputes under the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy ), shall be governed by
SMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings.
SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado
CIVIL APPEALS PAMPHLET PRO BONO PROJECT FOR THE SPONSORED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE PRO BONO COMMITTEES FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS APPELLATE SECTION
CIVIL APPEALS PAMPHLET FOR THE PRO BONO PROJECT SPONSORED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE PRO BONO COMMITTEES FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS APPELLATE SECTION AND THE HOUSTON BAR ASSOCIATION APPELLATE SECTION IN THE
Case 0:12-cv-60597-JIC Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/13 12:33:23 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:12-cv-60597-JIC Document 108 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/13 12:33:23 Page 1 LISA KOWALSKI, a Florida resident, v. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan
T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
Dated 29 February 2016. Flood Re Limited. Payments Dispute Process. Version 1.0
Dated 29 February 2016 Flood Re Limited Payments Dispute Process Version 1.0 1. General 1.1 The following provisions will apply to all disputes referred to and conducted under this Payments Dispute Resolution
CLAIMS AGAINST TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS
CLAIMS AGAINST TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS Martin M. Ween, Esq. Partner Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M E M O R A N D U M. STENGEL, J. November, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE : COMPANY of AMERICA, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff : : v. : NO. 04-462 : PAUL M. PRUSKY, : STEVEN G. PRUSKY,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ISABEL S. COHEN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff, C.A. No. 09-153 S RHODE ISLAND TURNPIKE AND BRIDGE AUTHORITY,
THIERRY P. DELOS : BK No. 08-11548 Debtor Chapter 7 : STACIE L. DELOS, Plaintiff : v. : A.P. No. 08-1049
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In re: : THIERRY P. DELOS : BK No. 08-11548 Debtor Chapter 7 : STACIE L. DELOS, Plaintiff : v. : A.P.
Dulaney L. O Roark III Vice President & General Counsel, Southeast Region Legal Department 5055 North Point Parkway Alpharetta, Georgia 30022
Dulaney L. O Roark III Vice President & General Counsel, Southeast Region Legal Department 5055 North Point Parkway Alpharetta, Georgia 30022 Phone 678-259-1449 Fax 678-259-1589 [email protected] July
T.C. Memo. 2007-176 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JAMES GROVER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent MEMORANDUM OPINION
T.C. Memo. 2007-176 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JAMES GROVER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 23598-06L. Filed July 3, 2007. James Grover, pro se. John R. Mikalchus, for
RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
LOCAL RULES FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI [Renumbered and codified by order of the Supreme Court effective May 18, 2006; amended effective April 23, 2009.] RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
Case l:ll-cv-02004-yk Document 15 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : : : ORDER
Case lll-cv-02004-yk Document 15 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
Award FINRA Dispute Resolution
Award FINRA Dispute Resolution In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Claimant Thomas Krajewski Case Number: 13-03740 vs. Respondent Mid Atlantic Capital Corporation TD Ameritrade, Inc. Wall Street
Case 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION VICKIE THORNBURG, Plaintiff, vs. STRYKER CORPORATION,
Case 1:05-cv-00050-GC Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 245 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
Case 1:05-cv-00050-GC Document 29 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 245 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE BUSINESS LENDERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 05-50-B-C RITANNE CAVANAUGH GAZAK,
JUDICIAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Under the Idaho Workers' Compensation Law
JUDICIAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Under the Idaho Workers' Compensation Law Effective May 8, 2013 IDAHO INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION 700 South Clearwater Lane PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0041 (208) 334-6000
Determining Tax Liability Under Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code
Determining Tax Liability Under Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code ) provides the means by which a debtor or trustee in bankruptcy may seek a determination
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION SARAH C. YARNEY, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:09-cv-00050 v. MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. ET AL,
Case 06-01220 Doc 40 Filed 04/15/08 Entered 04/15/08 15:36:45 Main Document Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE : CASE NO. 06-10179 OCA, INC., et al. SECTION B DEBTORS CHAPTER 11 Jointly Administered OCA, INC. AND OCA OUTSOURCE, INC.
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 16, 2009; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-002008-MR OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR AND WATERPROOFING, D/B/A OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR CO. OF
SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE
INDEX WHO CAN BE SUED IN SMALL CLAIMS Pg. 1 RESTRICTIONS ON CLAIM AMOUNTS Pg. 1 FILING FEES Pg. 1 OTHER LEGAL OPTIONS Pg. 1 HOW DO I FILE A CLAIM Pg. 2 WHERE SHOULD I FILE A SMALL CLAIM Pg. 2 WHAT HAPPENS
Case No. CV-08-00810 R NOTICE TO CLASS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHEN STETSON, SHANE LAVIGNE, CHRISTINE LEIGH BROWN-ROBERTS, VALENTIN YUI KARPENKO, and JAKE JEREMIAH FATHY, individually and on behalf of
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CONSENT ORDER
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of ) FIRSTCOMP INSURANCE ) Docket No. 3946-CO COMPANY ) CONSENT ORDER The Kansas Insurance Department ( KID ) and FirstComp Insurance
Case 1:06-cv-22273-SH Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/07 13:02:36 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:06-cv-22273-SH Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/07 13:02:36 Page 1 LAWRENCE KATT, M.D., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
State of California Department of Corporations
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS Allied Cash Advance California, LLC dba Allied Cash Advance File # 0- and 0 locations NW th Street, Suite 00 Doral,
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Hart v. Kieu Le, 2013 IL App (2d) 121380 Appellate Court Caption LYNETTE Y. HART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOAN KIEU LE, Defendant-Appellee. District & No. Second
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01673-COA
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01673-COA LEE W. ULMER APPELLANT v. TRACKER MARINE, LLC D/B/A TRACKER MARINE GROUP D/B/A TRAVIS BOATING CENTER, MAKO MARINE INTERNATIONAL,
HEADNOTE: Kevin Mooney, et ux. v. University System of Maryland, No. 302, Sept. Term, 2007 SECURED TRANSACTIONS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
HEADNOTE: Kevin Mooney, et ux. v. University System of Maryland, No. 302, Sept. Term, 2007 SECURED TRANSACTIONS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY The State, in its position as a payor on an account, which account exists
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Julie Brill Maureen K. Ohlhausen Joshua D. Wright Terrell McSweeny
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman Julie Brill Maureen K. Ohlhausen Joshua D. Wright Terrell McSweeny In the Matter of FILE NO. 132 3272
ESTATE OF JOHN JENNINGS. WILLIAM CUMMING et al. entered in the Superior Court (Waldo County, R. Murray, J.) finding George liable
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2013 ME 103 Docket: Wal-13-175 Argued: October 7, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN
Any civil action exempt from arbitration by action of a presiding judge under ORS 36.405.
CHAPTER 13 Arbitration 13.010 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER (1) This UTCR chapter applies to arbitration under ORS 36.400 to 36.425 and Acts amendatory thereof but, except as therein provided, does not apply
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE In re SEAN PURCELL JETER SHEILA ANN JETER fka SHEILA ANN HARRIS Case No. 12-34953 Debtors MEMORANDUM ON AFFIDAVIT OF WOOLF, MCCLANE,
Control Number : 42782. Item Number : 11. Addendum StartPage : 0
Control Number : 42782 Item Number : 11 Addendum StartPage : 0 DOCKET NO. 42782 ^. APPLICATION OF ONE RING NETWORKS II, INC. FOR A SERVICE PROVIDER CERTIFICATE OF OPERATING AUTHORITY ^^^^ PUBLIC UTILITY
STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
ST 09-1 Tax Type: Issue: Sales Tax Bad Debt Write-Off STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ABC, INC., ) Docket No. 07-ST-0000 Taxpayer ) Claim Periods
4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
4:13-cv-10877-MAG-LJM Doc # 16 Filed 07/03/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL BUSSARD, v. Plaintiff, SHERMETA, ADAMS AND VON ALLMEN,
CARACOL LIMITED TIME HOME BUILDING INCENTIVE RIDER
CARACOL LIMITED TIME HOME BUILDING INCENTIVE RIDER Attached to and made a part of the Purchase Agreement dated, 2012 (the Agreement ) between Blackberry Island, LP ( Seller ) and ( Purchaser ) Purchaser
A M SA HOUSEHOL D GOOD S DISPUT E SET TLEMENT P R O G R A M
A M SA HOUSEHOL D GOOD S DISPUT E SET TLEMENT P R O G R A M Program Rules for the AMSA Household Goods Dispute Settlement Program As Amended and Effective October 1, 2010 INTRODUCTION The arbitration procedures
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DIVISION IN RE: * * [Debtor s Name] * (***-**-last four digits of SSN) * Case No. - [Joint Debtor s Name, if any * Chapter 13 (***-**-last
How To Process A Small Claims Case In Anarizonia
What is a small claims division? Every justice court in Arizona has a small claims division to provide an inexpensive and speedy method for resolving most civil disputes that do not exceed $2,500. All
In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS
In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff
Case: 1:11-cv-00375-DAP Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/10/11 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 111-cv-00375-DAP Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/11 1 of 5. PageID # 11cv0375a-ord(jurisdiction).wpd UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION C.B. FLEET COMPANY, INC.,
Complaint, Investigation and Hearing Procedure Rules (effective November 15, 2012)
Complaint, Investigation and Hearing Procedure Rules (effective November 15, 2012) Pursuant to section 14(5) of the Emergency and Health Services Act (the Act ), the Emergency Medical Assistants Licensing
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES L. MARTIN, Plaintiff Below- Appellant, v. NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below- Appellee. No. 590, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of
