C.17-06-022 ALJ/KK2/avs
ALJ/KK2/avs Date of Issuance 12/19/2017
Decision 17-12-011 December 14, 2017
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Matter of the Grievance of Roadrunner Management Services, Inc., doing business as California Shuttle and Limousine for Reinstatement of Operating Authority for TCP-28858A. / (ECP)Case 17-06-022
DECISION DISMISSING EXPEDITED COMPLAINT
Summary
This proceeding involves the suspension of the Complainant’s transportation charter-party permit by the Commission’s Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division. On June 28, 2017, Roadrunner Management Services, Inc., doing business as California Shuttle and Limousine, filed an expedited complaint seeking reinstatement of its operating authority (TCP-28858A.) The expedited complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to set forth an actionable claim under Article 4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. This proceeding is closed.
1. Background
On June 13, 2017, the Commission’s Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division (CPED) mailed an Order of Suspension (Suspension Order) to Roadrunner Management Services, Inc., doing business as California Shuttle and Limousine (Complainant).
The CPED based its decision to issue the Suspension Order on the recommendation and report of field investigation by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) that found that the Complainant failed to meet the controlled substance and alcohol testing requirements. The Suspension Order was issued pursuant to California Pub. Util. Code[1] section 5378.5(a) which specifically requires that upon receipt of a written recommendation from the CHP to suspend a charter-party permit for failure to maintain a vehicle in a safe operating condition or to comply with the Vehicle Code or Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, “the commission shall, pending a hearing in the matter pursuant to subdivision (d), suspend the carrier’s certificate or permit.”
The Suspension Order notified the Complainant of the suspension and the need to pay for and obtain a re-inspection by the CHP. The Suspension Order also informed the Complainant that upon notification from the CHP that the Complainant successfully met the legal requirements enforced by the CHP, the CPED would reinstate the Complainant’s operating permit.
The Complainant has since requested the re-inspection from the CHP and paid the requisite fee. On June 21, 2017, the CHP re-inspected the Complainant’s facility, and on June 22, 2017, the CPED received a reinstatement approval notification from the CHP. The CPED reinstated the Complainant’s operating permit effective June 23, 2017.[2]
On June 28, 2017, the Complainant filed an expedited complaint (Expedited Complaint) under Article 4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedures (Rules). The Expedited Complaint seeks (1) reinstatement of the Complainant’s operating authority and (2) expungement of the Complainant’s record of the alleged inaccuracies in the CHP’s finding or findings, which had been relied on by the CPED in issuing the Suspension Order. On October3,2017, the CPED filed its Answer.
On October 23, 2017, a prehearing conference (PHC) was held in the Commission’s San Francisco Courtroom. The Complainant sought and was granted permission to attend the PHC telephonically. The Complainant appeared by telephone and was represented by six of its management team including Charles Sandlin, Valerie White, Charles Conners, Joe Flores and Sumaia Sandlin, as the principal representative of the Complainant. The CPED representatives Valerie Beck and Maritza Perez appeared in person.
During the PHC, the Complainant was asked why the Expedited Complaint was filed rather than a hearing request to review the Suspension Order as instructed in the Suspension Order.[3] One of the Complainant’s representative explained that the Complainant’s response to the Suspension Order occurred very fast and there may have been process confusion or error.[4] As for whether the Complainant sought review by the CHP of the underlying CHP investigation and resulting factual findings, one of the Complainant’s representatives explained that the Complainant sought review from the CHP. The result of that review by the CHP, according to the representatives of both CPED and the Complainant, was that the CHP concluded that it would not change its field investigation finding or findings. This Expedited Complaint does not involve a regulated utility.
2. Discussion
Procedurally, the Complainant erroneously filed the Expedited Complaint when it should have requested a hearing under Code section 5378.5 seeking reinstatement. The Commission’s expedited complaint process is set forth in Rule 4.5, and such a proceeding must involve, inter alia, a complaint against a regulated utility.[5] This Expedited Complaint does not involve a regulated utility.
Substantively, even if the Complainant dismisses the Expedited Complaint and then files a request for hearing the Commission’s authority under Code Section5378.5, the request is untimely under that statute, and more importantly, the first relief the Complainant seeks (reinstatement) is now moot as its operating permit has already been reinstated. The Complainant has confirmed, during the PHC, that it received the notice from the CPED that it has lifted the Suspension Order and the Complainant’s operating permit has been reinstated.
That leaves the second relief the Complainant seeks in the Expedited Complaint, which is expungement of the Complainant’s record of the alleged inaccuracies in the CHP’s finding or findings. Section 5378.5 does not give the Commission any jurisdiction to review and second guess the CHP’s field investigation, report, finding and recommendation. As noted in the filing and by the Complainant’s representatives at the PHC, the CHP afforded the Complainant an opportunity to present its case and challenges concerning the CHP’s field investigation, report, finding and recommendation, which served as basis for the Suspension Order. To date, the CHP has not revised its field investigation report, finding and recommendation, which served as basis for the Suspension Order.
Code Section 5378.5 (a) provides:
Upon receipt of a written recommendation from the Department of the California Highway Patrol that the certificate or permit of a charter-party carrier be suspended either (1) for failure to maintain any vehicle used in transportation for compensation in a safe operating condition or to comply with the Vehicle Code or with regulations contained in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations relative to motor carrier safety if that failure is either a consistent failure or presents an imminent danger to public safety, or (2) for failure to enroll all drivers in the pull notice system as required by Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, the commission shall, pending a hearing in the matter pursuant to subdivision (d), suspend the carrier’s certificate or permit. …. [Emphasis added.]
Here, even if the Complainant filed a timely request for hearing on the Suspension Order, this Commission lacks the authority to expunge or otherwise alter the Complainant’s record of the alleged inaccuracies in the CHP’s findings. As it was explained by the Administrative Law Judge during the PHC, the above statutory framework empowers the CHP to conduct field investigations and render factual findings and recommendations. The Commission’s limited role is to take the findings and recommendations by the CHP and issue the Suspension Order. As noted by the CPED staff during the PHC, if CHP updates CHP’s field investigation report, finding and recommendation and relays that to the Commission or if the Complainant wishes to have a clarifying statement be made part of its licensing file, the CPED staff agreed that such could occur at that time.
Based on the foregoing, the Expedited Complaint is dismissed.
3. Assignment of Proceeding
Liane M. Randolph is the assigned Commissioner and Kimberly H. Kim is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
4. Exemption from Comment Period
This is an expedited complaint proceeding. Pursuant to Rule 14.7(b) of the Commission’s Rules, no 30-day public review and comment period is required.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
- This expedited complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
- Case 17-06-022 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated December 14, 2017, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL PICKER
President
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES
CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN
Commissioners
- 6 -
[1] Unless otherwise specified, all references to Code in this decision refer to California Pub. Util. Code.
[2] The CPED mailed a reinstatement notification to the Complainant on June 26, 2017.
[3] PHC Transcript at 16-17.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Rule 4.5(a).