See Ex Sample Clauses
See Ex. The e-mail notice will include a link to the applicant’s Background Check Report and a copy of the criminal record information that the applicant self-disclosed at the time he or she applied. MSG will send a follow-up, reminder e-mail to all applicants four (4) days later which will provide a second link to the applicant’s Background Check Report and a copy of the criminal record information that the applicant self-disclosed at the time he or she applied. In determining whether an applicant who did not fully and accurately disclose his or her criminal conviction history will be offered employment, MSG will consider whether the applicant provides MSG with information to MSG’s satisfaction that the applicant did not intentionally misrepresent his or her criminal conviction history. In such review, MSG will consider, among other factors, the extent to which the applicant demonstrates with credible explanation, that the applicant was confused about the applicant’s criminal conviction history and/or that the applicant made a good faith effort to fully and accurately disclose such history. For example, MSG will consider as an important factor that the applicant disclosed his or her most serious criminal conviction(s).
See Ex. SPP-1 (highlighted pages of non-conforming terms and conditions in the AEP Agreement).
See Ex. Liberty Utilities-1, at 5-1:1–5-3:12. 11
See Ex. C-8, Pls’ Am. Initial Disclosures (“Disclosures”), Dkt. 617. And of the nine corporate representatives Plaintiffs designated as potential witnesses in this case, not a single one is associated with any of the Hawai‘i Retailers. See id. (designating nine corporate representatives of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, PM USA, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ predecessor ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇).
See Ex. A at DEF000134-35 (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Declaration ¶ 17); Ex. C at ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Declaration ¶ 17). to replacing a pole in the middle of the night at a moment’s notice.68 AT&T postulates that this benefit is really a disadvantage because its competitors are not required to own any poles at all. This postulation misses the point for at least two reasons. First, AT&T is not required to own poles. If it were required to own poles, it would own % of the jointly used network (AT&T’s “objective percentage” in the joint use agreement), no net rentals would exchange hands, and there would not be a complaint proceeding. It is precisely because AT&T is not required to own poles that the parties are here in the first place. Second, the financial benefit of AT&T being able to rely on DEF crews, equipment, etc. in times of need supports, rather than undermines, the consideration within the joint use agreement. DEF denies the allegations in the fourth sentence of paragraph 20 for the reasons set forth above.
21. DEF denies the allegations in paragraph 21 and specifically rejects AT&T’s interpretation of the 2018 Order. The Commission identified the pre-existing telecom rate as a “hard cap” only with respect to “contracts entered into or renewed after the effective date of [Rule 1.1413].”69 As set forth above in paragraph 11, the joint use agreement at issue here was neither “entered into” nor “renewed” after March 11, 2019. The joint use agreement was “entered into” in 1969, and the cost-sharing methodology was last amended in 1990. It continues in effect today. Even if the joint use agreement could subsequently be “renewed” after March 11, 2019, this “renewal” could not apply to existing joint use poles because neither party has the right to terminate the agreement with respect to joint use poles existing at the time of termination. Without a corresponding right to termination, there can be no “renewal.” Similarly, without a right of termination, the joint use agreement cannot be in “evergreen” status. The Commission implicitly
See Ex. SPP-1 (highlighted pages of non-conforming terms and conditions in the Western Farmers Agreement).
See Ex. 3A for depiction of Urban Open Space; legal description to be prepared at time of execution of City Conservation Easement.]
See Ex. A at DEF000128 (Declaration of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Oct. 30, 2020 (“▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Declaration”) ¶ 4). 2 See id. such right exists with respect to existing joint use poles. The agreement only allows for termination with respect to future jointly used poles.3 For this reason, there is no such thing as a “renewal” with respect to existing joint use poles, because neither party has a corresponding right of termination with respect to existing joint use poles.4 DEF further admits that the parties share approximately 67,500 jointly used poles, with DEF owning approximately 62,300 and AT&T owning approximately 5,200. DEF denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 3.
See Ex. 15 at ¶1; Ex. 16 at ¶1; Aloha Br. at 12-13. Accordingly, it is possible that ▇▇▇▇▇ would not have the requisite knowledge of resulting injury.
See Ex. CRMC approved the application as submitted. Tr. at 56, 95-96. Plaintiffs never raised concerns during negotiations of the Consent Order regarding this issue or when the plan was submitted. Id. at 138. Moreover, evidence presented at trial established that the Lighthouse Dock had not included posts since December 2009. When applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms and looking at the surrounding circumstances, the Relocated Dock was not required to include any posts pursuant to the Consent Order. Consequently, this Court finds that Plaintiffs do not have the right to reinstall posts on the floating dock.