hearing when the outcome is a foregone conclusion under the current law and policy of this Commission. (Re Western Gas Resources-California, Inc. Gas Resources”) (“Western [D.99-11-023] (1999) 3 Cal.P.U.C.3d 297, 301.) To determine whether a complaint is well-pleaded, the Commission has looked to section 1702. Pursuant to section 1702, a complaint must set forth an or “act thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission.” Thus, section 1702 describes a two-pronged test: a complaint must allege (1) an act by a public utility, and (2) a violation of law or Commission order or rule. (See Pub. Util. Code, § 1702.) In its Complaint, O1 Communications alleged that AT&T Mobility Wireless discriminated against O1 Communications when it offered preferential terms and rates for direct interconnection to other customers and refused to offer those same terms and rates for direct interconnection to O1 Communications, in violation of section 453(a). (Complaint, p. 24.) Section 453(a) states: No public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage. (Pub. Util. Code, § 453, subd. (a).) Based on the allegations set forth in the Complaint, O1 Communications did satisfy the two-prong test set forth in section 1702. Because O1 Communications has satisfied the two-pronged test for a complaint, we would next look at the facts in the Complaint to determine whether the facts actually state a cause of action on which relief may be granted. The facts allege that AT&T Mobility Wireless discriminated against O1 Communications by providing other telephone corporations preferential treatment in violation of section
hearing when the outcome is a foregone conclusion under the current law and policy of this Commission. (Re Western Gas Resources-California, Inc. (“Western Gas Resources”) [D.99-11-023] (1999) 3 Cal.P.U.C.3d 297, 301.) To determine whether a complaint is well-pleaded, the Commission has looked to section 1702. Pursuant to section 1702, a complaint must set forth an “act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility, including any rule or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission.” Thus, section 1702 describes a two-pronged test: a complaint must allege (1) an act by a public utility, and (2) a violation of law or Commission order or rule. (See Pub. Util. Code, § 1702.) In its Complaint, O1 Communications alleged that AT&T Mobility Wireless discriminated against O1 Communications when it offered preferential terms and rates for direct interconnection to other customers and refused to offer those same terms and rates for direct interconnection to O1 Communications, in violation of section 453(a). (Complaint, p. 24.) Section 453(a) states: No public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage. (Pub. Util. Code, § 453, subd. (a).) Based on the allegations set forth in the Complaint, O1 Communications did satisfy the two-prong test set forth in section 1702. Because O1 Communications has satisfied the two-pronged test for a complaint, we would next look at the facts in the Complaint to determine whether the facts actually state a cause of action on which relief may be granted. The facts allege that AT&T Mobility Wireless discriminated against O1 Communications by providing other telephone corporations preferential treatment in violation of section
191250881.docx