Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(3) a stipulation that the PUC specifically agreed <br />that its prior decision was not a finding by <br />13(b). As a result <br />O'Bryant's claim for <br />mooted. <br />the provisions of Rube <br />of this stipulation, <br />attorney fees would bye <br />On the basis of the settlement Mountain Bell and PUC <br />filed a motion to dismiss. O'Bryant objected to the settlement <br />upon the grounds that the PUC was without authority to enter into <br />the agreement or to modify its prior decision while judi~~ial review <br />was pending. The district court approved the settlement and <br />dismissed the case holding that O'Bryant suffered no prejudice as <br />a result of the settlement. O'Bryant filed an appeeal to the <br />Supreme Court arguing that PUC exceeded its authority by entering <br />into the settlement. Mountain Bell claimed that O'Bryant had no <br />standing to bring the appeal. <br />In the Supreme Court decision, the majority of the <br />opinion concerned O'Bryant's standing to bring the appeal. That <br />portion which deals with the PUC's authority to alter it:s previous <br />order by entering into the settlement with Mountain Ezell simply <br />follows the decision in Colorado anti-Discrimination Commission and <br />does not enlarge or modify the general rule annunciated in that <br />opinion. The focal point of the court's analysis in C~'Bryant is <br />the obvious unfairness of the PUC's actions. <br />Initially, the Court notes that: <br />the Public Utilities Law contemplates that they <br />PUC, which obviously has no personal, economic, <br />or other tangible interest in its decision, <br />will act as a neutral decision maker in <br />resolving the issues before it. Once judicial <br />review is commenced in the district court bp~ <br />filing a petition for writ of certiorari, thE: <br />PUC's obligation is to certify the record ir. <br />a timely fashion and, if it so desires, to <br />appear before the district court in support of <br />its decision." O'Brvant, at 19. <br />Rather than act in this neutral fashion the court states <br />that the effect of PUC's settlement was (1) to deprive C~'Bryant of <br />his right to require Mountain Bell to comply with Rule 13(b) and <br />to require the PUC to abide by its own rules; (2) the settlement <br />and ensuing judgment of dismissal had the effect of impairing <br />O'Bryant's prospective statutory claim for punitive damages against <br />Mountain Bell for willful violation of Rule 13(b); acid (3) the <br />settlement and judgment deprived O'Bryant of any opportunity to <br />recover attorney fees and costs against Mountain Bell for <br />9 <br />