PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sample Clauses

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Norlight, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications (“Norlight”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2, 2008 (“Agreement”) under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of Norlight, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 14, 2008. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On September 19, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (hereinafter “IBTC”) and AmeriVoice Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Black Telecom USA (“AmeriVoice”), filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a joint Petition for approval of the Interconnection Agreement dated August 27, 2003 (the “Agreement”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the Petition. A statement in support of the Petition was filed, along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of IBTC, and by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of AmeriVoice, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Commission Staff (“Staff”) filed the Verified Statement of ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to notice given in accordance with the law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was heard by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on October 15, 2003. Counsel for IBTC and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. The Verified Statement of ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5, 2004, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) and Cinergy Communications Company (“Cinergy”) (SBC and Cinergy are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30, 2004, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment was filed with the joint petition along with the statement of ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, Director-Contract Management for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and Interconnection. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9, 2004. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ recommends approval of the amendment. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On or about August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the County, G.F. et al. v.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On December 14, 2021, PG&E filed the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in its 2021 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding, A.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ (“2021 NDCTP Application”). A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, SLO County, TURN and WEM each filed timely protests or responses to the 2021 NDCTP Application, to which PG&E responded on January 24, 2022. Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) filed a motion for party status on February 15, 2022. During the telephonic prehearing conference held on February 17, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ▇▇▇▇▇ granted party status to SCE and to DHK. At the prehearing conference the parties specified issues agreed to be within the scope of proceeding, and those issues lacking consensus as to whether they were appropriately included within the scope of the proceeding. On April 19, 2022, Commissioner ▇▇▇▇▇ issued the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling (“Scoping Memo”) which established the issues to be considered in the 2021 NDCTP. The Scoping Memo also requested comments on (1) whether the 2021 NDCTP should be consolidated with A.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Joint Application of SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric Company for the 2021 NDCTP (“SONGS NDCTP”); and (2) whether the Commission should conduct a site visit and/or public participation hearing for Humboldt Bay Power Plant (“HBPP”). PG&E, TURN, SCE, NCTC, SLO County, WEM and A4NR each filed comments on the Scoping Memo on April 29, 2022.1 yak tityu tityu yak tilhini Northern Chumash Cultural Preservation Kinship (“YTT Kinship”) and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ moved for party status on March 7, 2022, and April 22, respectively; these motions were granted by email ruling on May 20, 2022. The Settling Parties actively and thoroughly reviewed the 2021 NDCTP Application, PG&E’s supporting testimony and site-specific decommissioning cost estimates. To enhance their understanding of the issues, the Settling Parties submitted, and PG&E responded to, a substantial number of data requests. On May 31, 2022, A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, TURN SLO County, and WEM each served direct testimony. PG&E served rebuttal testimony addressing the issues raised by those parties who filed direct testimony on June 30, 2022. On July 7, 2022, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ issued an Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Noticing Date and Time of Public Participation Hearing and Authorizing PG&E to Deviate from The Notice Requirement Timelines of Rule 13.1(b). On August 10, 2022, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ canceled the public participation hearing...

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On October 24, 2002, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech”) and Delta Phones, Inc. (“Delta”) (Ameritech and Delta are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of a negotiated interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated October 8, 2002, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. A copy of the Agreement was filed with the joint petition. Also accompanying the joint petition is a statement in support of the joint petition from ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, Director-Negotiations for Ameritech Services, Inc./Illinois Bell Telephone Company Industry Markets. Petitioners’ October 24th filing was docketed as Docket No. 02-0695. On December 23, 2002, Petitioners filed a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to aforementioned Agreement. A copy of the amendment as well as a statement in support of the amendment from ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ accompanied the joint petition. The amendment specifically modifies the underlying Agreement by replacing the Appendix Performance Measurements in the underlying Agreement. Petitioners’ December 23rd filing was docketed as Docket No. 02-0860. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on November 12, November 26, November 27, December 18, and December 30, 2002. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of Ameritech, Delta, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). Docket Nos. 02-0695 and 02-0860 were consolidated at the request of Ameritech. At the conclusion of the December 30th hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On October 3, 2014, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ filed a class action complaint in ▇▇▇▇▇ v. Toyota Toyota (as defined below) designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised and sold certain Tacoma vehicles that allegedly lacked adequate rust protection on the vehicles’ frames that would allegedly result in premature rust corrosion and that ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and others similarly situated sustained economic losses as a result thereof. B. On March 24, 2015, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others filed a class action complaint in ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et ▇▇ ▇. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-02171 (C.D. Cal.) alleging, among other things, that Toyota (as defined below) designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised and sold certain Tacoma vehicles that allegedly lacked adequate rust protection on the vehicles’ frames that would allegedly result in premature rust corrosion and that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated sustained economic losses as a result thereof. C. On April 23, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Toyota’s motion to dismiss plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’ complaint. Pursuant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas’ Order, plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’ claims for breach of express and implied warranties were dismissed, while the order upheld his claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for unjust enrichment and for declaratory relief.. D. On June 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order granting Toyota’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others without prejudice. E. On June 19, 2015, plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others filed a First Amended Complaint. F. On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas issued an Order granting in part and denying in part, Toyota’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’ claims. Pursuant to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas’ Order, Toyota’s motion for summary judgment was denied on all grounds except that plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief was dismissed. In addition, according to this court’s order, Toyota’s motion to deny class certification was denied without prejudice. This court found it premature to make a ruling regarding whether class certification for any of ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ three proposed classes should be denied based upon the plea...

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On May 6, 2004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and Sage Telecom, Inc. (“Sage”), (collectively “Joint Petitioners”) filed a joint petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated April 30, 2004, under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇ on behalf of SBC Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of ▇▇▇▇, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, a Status session was held in this matter on June 7, 2004. SBC Illinois, Sage, and Commission Staff appeared by counsel. Petitions for Leave to Intervene filed by AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc. (“AT&T”) and MCI, Inc. (“MCI”) were granted. Staff stated that it had not yet filed a Verified Statement in this docket. On June 14, Staff filed the Verified Statement of ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. The Parties filed replies (AT&T and ▇▇▇ filed a joint reply to Staff’s Verified Statement and joint Exceptions to the Proposed Order; they are identified herein as AT&T/MCI). This matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on June 25, 2004. SBC Illinois, Sage, AT&T, MCI, and Staff appeared. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ testified on behalf of the Verified Statement, which was admitted into evidence, and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On November 22, 2000, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and Vectris Telecom, Inc. (“Vectris”), filed joint requests for approval of the First Amendment to Interconnection Agreement dated September 27, 2000 and the Second Amendment to Interconnection Agreement dated October 11, 2000 (the “Agreements”), under §§ 252 (a)(1) 252(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151, et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreements were submitted with the requests. A statement in support of each request was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and ▇. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, on behalf of Vectris, stating that the facts contained in the request for approval are true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Hearing Examiner of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on January 11, 2001. Staff filed the Verified Statements of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and A. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, in Dockets 00-0753 and 00-0754 respectively, of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which were admitted into evidence. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ recommended the approval of the Agreements. At the hearing, Staff indicated that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding, and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”