Vaya Telecom v. Public Utilities Commission CA4/3
Opinion
Opinion
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As stated in the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Certification of the Record, the underlying administrative proceeding consisted of three phases. In Phase 1, AT&T filed a complaint in 2017 with the Commission, alleging Vaya had violated the terms of the ICA, including terms the Commission had previously decided in a 2014 decision involving the parties. The Commission resolved Phase 1 in favor of AT&T. In Phase 2, the Commission determined Vaya owed AT&T $3,364,692 for violating the ICA, and fined Vaya $40,000 for violating the 2014 decision. Phase 1 and Phase 2 are not at issue in the instant matter. In Phase 3, described in further detail below, the Commission imposed liability for AT&T’s damages and the fine on Vaya’s non-utility affiliates under the alter ego doctrine. The instant “petition does not challenge the Commission’s factual findings underlying the . . . application of the alter ego doctrine. Rather, the focus of the petition is on jurisdictional issues, specifically whether the Commission has authority to impose liability on Vaya’s non-utility affiliates under the alter ego doctrine.”